Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Swansea Gas Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Coventry Corporation Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

DEMOBILISED OFFICERS.

Colonel Sir C. YATE: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India for what reason demobilised officers in India, who have been detained for so many weeks past at Deolali pending transport to England, have been compelled to sign a declaration that they would not hold the Government responsible in the event of accidents occurring out of the trooping season owing to hot weather risks; whether this declaration applies to the wives of the officers concerned; and what compensation is to be given to those officers who have been kept long after the expiration of their contract date at personal loss to themselves?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The declaration was adopted at the instance of the War Office. It does not apply to officers, but only to their families, and is analogous to the undertaking required by the War Office from families going to India from this country. I am considering proposals of the Government of India as to the treatment of officers who may have suffered hardship in this connection, and hope to come to a decision shortly.

SPEECHES (Mr. ANDREWS).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the seditious speeches which a Mr. Andrews is delivering in India; whether this person is a British subject and amenable to British law; and whether he will consider as to arranging for Andrews to be sent back to England with a view to his being placed on trial on a charge of sedition?

Mr. MONTAGU: I have seen a Press report of parts of a speech made by Mr. Andrews. I am not prepared to express an opinion as to whether it comes within the scope of the criminal law. Mr. Andrews is a British subject. If a British subject commit an offence in India, the Courts in India are the proper authorities for trying the case.

Sir F. HALL: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the stirring up of strife is likely to increase if people of British nationality are permitted to make these seditious speeches and no official notice is taken of them; and will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the authorities in India with a view to ensuring a cessation of the activities of this so-called gentleman?

Mr. MONTAGU: I must leave the necessary steps for the preservation of order in India to the Government of India and the local governments.

ARMY REDUCTIONS AND EXPENDITURE.

Sir C. YATE: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the proposal for the establishment and the number of units of the Indian Army in each arm of the service to be maintained in India, namely, 21 cavalry regiments and 132 infantry battalions, are based upon what was required by the Commander-in-Chief in India for the defence of India, namely, the 340,000 men employed for that purpose during the operations in 1919, or on the present demands of the Finance Department of the Government of India for reduction without consideration for the necessities of the defence of India; what is the total gross revenue of India, including the receipts both of the Government of India and of all the different Provinces; what is the proposed military expenditure after the proposed reductions in the Indian
Army have been carried out; and what percentage does that expenditure bear to the gross revenue of British India?

Mr. MONTAGU: As regards the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question, I regret that I can add nothing to the reply given in this House on 7th June, in which I informed him that the proposals were submitted by the Commander-in-Chief and based upon a detailed examination of what is required for the defence of India. The proposed military expenditure is 62.20 crores. The figures for the gross revenue of all the Provinces have not yet been received, so that I regret I cannot at present say what percentage of the gross revenue the proposed military expenditure represents. If my hon. and gallant Friend wishes it I will obtain the figures for which he has asked, but I would take this opportunity of pointing out that a more satisfactory comparison would probably be that between the proposed military expenditure and the net revenue of the Government of India.

Sir C. YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will have the figures?

Mr. MONTAGU: If my hon. Friend will tell me which figures he prefers, I will communicate with the Government of India, and try to get them.

Sir C. YATE: The gross figures, both for the Government of India and the provinces.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT STAFFS.

PUBLICITY BRANCHES.

Mr. HURD: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing the extent of unemployment, it is still necessary to maintain a Publicity Branch of the War Office to promote recruiting?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders): The promotion of recruiting is only one of the functions of the Publicity Branch of the War Office. I am satisfied that the continuance of this Branch is in the public interest, but I am hoping to effect certain economies in the near future.

Mr. HURD: In so far as employment is found, will the right hon. Gentleman
see that preference is given to those who have served in the Army?

Sir R. SANDERS: I will represent that view to my right hon. Friend.

Colonel ASHLEY: Was there a Publicity Department at the War Office previous to the War?

Sir R. SANDERS: I believe not.

Colonel ASHLEY: Why is it necessary to have one now, seeing that the War has been over for two years?

Sir R. SANDERS: I must ask for notice of that question.

Major MORGAN: What are the other branches of publicity that are now required?

Sir R. SANDERS: If the hon. Member will put down a question, I will give him an exhaustive answer.

Mr. HURD: 37.
asked the Minister of Pensions why it is necessary to maintain a Publicity Branch of his Ministry, seeing the availability to the public of all information as to Pension Regulations, etc.?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): With the assistance of the public Press, which my right hon. Friend gratefully acknowledges, the Publicity Branch of the Ministry, consisting of an experienced journalist, with a clerical assistant, has performed and is still performing much useful work in bringing to the notice of ex-service men and their dependants the benefits to which they are or may be entitled under the Warrants and Regulations of the Ministry. In view of the number of belated claims which are still being received in the Department, and of the misconceptions which still prevail, it is, I think, clear that the time has not yet arrived when the services of this Branch can be dispensed with. I may add that the publicity work of the Ministry has been under examination by the Departmental Committee of Inquiry, whose Report is shortly expected.

Mr. HURD: What method is followed by which these excellent gentlemen perform their work in the Department?

Major TRYON: The method is to try by every means to let the pensioners know everything they are entitled to
know. It would be very poor economy if we did not let pensioners know fully what are their rights.

Mr. HURD: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that no ex-service man of whom I have ever heard has been in communication with the Department and these officers?

Mr. HURD: 78.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in addition to the £19,043 paid to publicity staffs of the ten Departments, there are Press or inquiry officers at these or any other Departments; what are the details of numbers, services, and cost; and has the recommendation of the Lytton Committee as to service in the War been strictly followed in all these publicity, Press, and inquiry appointments?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): The figure in question covers all special arrangements for publicity work in the United Kingdom. As I explained in my answer on the 24th May, the usual arrangements is for publicity work to be performed by the ordinary officials as part of their normal duties. It would not be possible without undue labour to compile a return relating to officials who may, as part of their normal duties, be called upon as occasion may require to do publicity work. The recommendations of the Lytton Committee cover all Departments of the Civil Service, and I have no reason to suppose that they have not been applied to publicity branches. If the hon. Member has any particular case in mind I shall be glad to make inquiries if he will be good enough to send me details.

Mr. HURD: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly make inquiries whether in the War Office itself the men engaged in this work are men who did not serve in the War?

Mr. YOUNG: Perhaps the hon. Member will address some communication to me on that subject, and I will consider the matter further.

INCREASED ESTABLISHMENTS.

Lieut.-Colonel NALL: 60.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that the Admiralty Office employs 7,000 clerks in
excess of the 1913 establishment, although the fighting personnel of the Navy is reduced; that the Air Ministry employs 4,300 persons in offices for duties which were performed by the War Office and Admiralty in 1913; and whether the Government intends, in the interest of economy, to abolish the Ministry of Labour, the Air Ministry, the Development Commission, and the Ministry of Transport, and to reduce all other Departments to their pre-War establishment of personnel?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): I am informed that the Admiralty excess is rather under 6,000, not 7,000, as stated in my hon. and gallant Friend's question. I cannot accept the suggestion that the work of the Air Ministry to-day is no greater than that performed in respect of the air by the War Office and Admiralty before the War, nor that excesses in these Departments are a reason for abolishing other Departments which have no connection with them. But I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that it is essential to review the work and staffs of these and, indeed, of all Government Departments, with a view to making every economy consistent with the proper maintenance of public services, and this is now being done.

Sir J. BUTCHERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this review or abolition of excessive staffs will take place in the course of the present year?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: All economies will be made as rapidly as it is possible to make them.

Colonel ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state approximately what these 6,000 extra clerks are doing, in view of the fact that we have won the War?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not wish to be put in the position of asserting that the retention of these 6,000 clerks, or of any particular number of them for any particular time, is necessary. My hon. and gallant Friend, I am sure, is aware that a great war means a great legacy of additional work, and all kinds of questions arise, as, for instance, in regard to the distribution of medals—

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: And prize money.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: And other matters, as a direct result of the War. These involve a great amount of work which was non-existent previously.

Major MORGAN: Are we to understand that the Mines Department will now be disbanded, in view of the mines being decontrolled?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have said nothing to give rise to that question.

PASSPORT OFFICES.

Sir S. HOARE: 91.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the staff and annual cost of the Passport Office in London, the Passport Department in Paris, and any officials, male, or female, temporary or permanent who are engaged upon full-time passport work in any British office abroad?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): With my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, I will circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the answer:

The particulars asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend are as follows:—

Passport Offices in London and Liverpool.

Total staff, 281.

Estimated cost of salaries, 1921–22, £54,000.

Incidental expenses, £90.

The numbers of the clerical staff will fluctuate from time to time owing to the seasonal variations in the volume of work; the numbers of the staff given above will probably represent the maximum staff employed at any one time.

Fees are collected by the passport offices in respect of the issue of passports, and the estimated yield for the current financial year is £122,500.

Passport Control.

Headquarters in London:

Number of staff, 10.

Estimated cost of salaries, 1921–22, £3,005.

Staff employed abroad:

Total number (including Paris, 25), 190.

Estimated cost of salaries, 1921–22 (including Paris, £10,000), £102,500.

The fees collected by passport control officers abroad during the year 1921–22 in respect of the grant of visas are estimated to amount to £150,000.

BONUS.

Commander BELLAIRS: 71.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the war bonus for civil servants was calculated on the average Board of Trade figure for the first of each month for every four months, and revised consequently on 1st November and 1st March with resultant increases; and why the decision was then taken to wait six months untill 1st September, when the next revision, if taken on 1st July, would have resulted in a large saving to the State?

Mr. YOUNG: The hon. and gallant Member is in error in suggesting that there has been a recent decision on this point. The original agreement entered into in May, 1920, at a time when it would have been impossible to forecast with any degree of accuracy future fluctuations in the Ministry of Labour cost of living figure provided that the Civil Service bonus should be recalculated every four months during the first 12 months of its operation and every six months thereafter. Under this arrangement revisions were effected on 1st July, 1920, 1st November, 1920, and 1st March, 1921 and the next revision falls to be made on 1st September 1921, as correctly stated by my hon. Friend.

Commander BELLAIRS: Why is it not possible to revise that decision of May, 1920, when it will obviously benefit the country if it be revised?

Mr. YOUNG: I think the reply to that question has been given in answer to similar previous questions, that this is an agreement made between two parties, and an agreement stands or falls as a whole.

Commander BELLAIRS: Has the House had the sanctioning of the agreement?

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: Is it the case that the civil servants themselves would be prepared to alter that agreement?

Mr. YOUNG: I could not answer that question for obvious reasons.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

MANCHESTER REGIMENT (CAPTAIN G. B. MARTIN).

Sir W. DAVISON: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Captain G. B. Martin, M.C., who joined the Royal Air Force after serving for six years in the ranks of the Royal Marines; whether under existing War Office Regulations this service cannot be counted in assessing the pension to which this officer is entitled although similar service in the ranks of the Army would have counted for pension; and whether he will take immediate steps to have the Regulations in this matter altered with a view to the removal of this anomaly?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): I think my hon. Friend is referring to Captain Martin, of the Manchester Regiment. The effect of the Regulations is as stated. Service in the ranks of the Marines does not count for either soldiers' or officers' Army pension. This Regulation was deliberately adopted, and it is not proposed to change it.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these anomalous Regulations between sister branches of the service cause a great deal of discontent, and surely it is not in the national interest to maintain a Regulation for which there is no reason or excuse?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: It is the same either way. Service in the Army does not count for pension in the Navy and vice versa. We must keep to the Regulations.

Sir F. HALL: If a person from one branch of the Civil Service be taken out of that branch of the service, and put into another branch of the Civil Service, does that time count for pension or not?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I must ask for notice of that question.

Captain GEE: Does not service in the ranks in the Army count for officer's pension?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: Yes, service in the Army counts for pension in the Army.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the hon. Gentleman consider this matter, as it is
strongly felt that service in any other branch of His Majesty's forces should count for pension?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I will consider it, but I cannot promise that it will make any difference.

RAILWAY WORKERS, SHOEBURYNESS.

Mr. JAMES WILSON: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the practice has prevailed for a number of years for the War Office to apply the general conditions of employment and wages of the railway service to the men employed on the Government railways at Shoeburyness, but that, notwithstanding considerable correspondence between his Department and the National Union of Railwaymen during the past 12 months, several national settlements have not been put into operation on the Government railways; and whether, in view of this undue delay, he will take immediate steps to settle the matter and to see that the arrears of pay due to the men concerned are paid?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I am informed that the practice of applying the wages of the railway service to certain War Department employés engaged at Shoeburyness was introduced in August, 1919; prior to that date these employés were not in receipt of full railway rates of wage. I am not satisfied that railway rates are properly applicable to these employés. Dissatisfaction has existed for some time among the workers at Shoeburyness at the methods of fixing the wages of the different classes, and the whole question has been very carefully considered by me recently. Certain proposals for placing the whole staff at this station on a common basis of payment have been made to the representatives of the employés. As soon as these proposals are accepted by all concerned, I am prepared to consider an adjustment as regards arrears of payment.

HORSE GUARDS PARADE (GERMAN GUNS).

Captain Viscount CURZON: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for War to what use it is proposed to put the two large German guns now on the Horse Guards Parade; whether they can be retained there permanently as trophies; and, if so, whether they can be disposed more symmetrically than at present?

Sir R. SANDERS: Now that the Horse Guards Parade has been cleared, it is proposed to move the two guns in question to the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich.

INTELLIGENCE DIRECTORATE.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for War, whether there are now a deputy-director and 36 general staff officers shown in the Army List as employed under the director of military intelligence at the War Office; and whether there will be an early reduction in these numbers, seeing that prior to the War there was no director of military intelligence and this work was done under the director of military operations, whose pre-War staff has only been reduced by 14 officers of these grades?

Sir R. SANDERS: In addition to the Deputy-Director, there are 34 General Staff officers in the Military Intelligence Directorate, excluding two Staff officers of the Royal Air Force who are attached. The Directorate has been reduced by 10 General Staff officers since March, 1920. By the end of the present financial year it is hoped to effect a further reduction of about 14 General Staff officers by the amalgamation of the Military Operations and Military Intelligence Directorates.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Does not this mean that eight more officers will be employed than before the War, and can the right hon. Gentleman say when we shall get back to pre-War establishment?

Sir R. SANDERS: I cannot answer that off-hand.

Sir S. HOARE: Cannot you make this reduction at once, and not wait until the end of the year?

Sir R. SANDERS: I will represent that to my right hon. Friend.

Captain W. BENN: Has not a circular been issued by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury asking that such reduction should be made?

Sir R. SANDERS: That was referred to in my answer.

Commander BELLAIRS: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is
one of the most important War Departments, and that it has always been found inadequate when war has broken out?

PAY OFFICE CLERKS.

Major BARNETT: 14.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether Pay Office clerks who were engaged before the end of 1919 are entitled, if they served in the Royal Army Pay Corps, to receive increments of pay based upon such service; whether men of the Royal Army Pay Corps who were asked during 1919 to defer demobilisation for six months or more, and who, on the completion of such extended service, were engaged as civilian clerks, are debarred from such increments; and, if so, whether he will consider the desirability of placing all Pay Office clerks on the same footing by making service in the Royal Army Pay Corps count for increments whether or not demobilisation was deferred at the request of the Department?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I am looking into this question, and will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend later.

LONDON PARKS (MILITARY OCCUPATION).

The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Sir W. DAVISON:

9. To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the public have now been excluded from Kensington Gardens for over two months, whereby children and old persons in the west of London are suffering in health from being unable to use the gardens and children's playground therein; whether he has considered the possibility of providing accommodation for the soldiers now encamped in the gardens in the outskirts of London, whence they could rapidly be conveyed by motor transport in the event of their services being required in the central districts; and whether, if it is impossible for the whole gardens to be opened to the public, he will make the necessary arrangements for the western end of the same, including the children's playground, to be re-opened?

Sir W. DAVISON: I think that effect has been given to the suggestion in the first part of the question.

Sir R. SANDERS: Kensington Gardens have been vacated by the troops, and were re-opened to the public on Saturday last.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

MILITARY OPERATIONS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether orders have been issued to the military governors in the martial-law areas in Ireland to avoid destroying the houses of widows or of ex-service men as official reprisals for crimes by unknown persons or by persons who cannot be captured, in view of the admitted cases of such reprisals that have occurred in which the property destroyed has belonged to widows or ex-service men?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): No such orders have been issued, nor are they necessary. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary stated yesterday afternoon, orders, however, have been recently issued by the Commander-in-Chief that every action taken against property must be based on strictly military grounds as denned by military orders.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: On military grounds, would it not be possible to avoid destroying the property of ex-soldiers, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only last week the home of an officer, serving in Mesopotamia, was wrecked in Queenstown in one of these terrible reprisals?

Mr. HENRY: I am not aware that ex-soldiers are the most exemplary class of the community.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not possible on military grounds, with a view to the morale of the forces, if for no other reason, to avoid destroying the property of men who are actually serving in the Army, as in the case I have specified?

Colonel ASHLEY: As the legal adviser of the Crown in Ireland, can the right hon. Gentleman define what are "military grounds"?

Mr. HENRY: I should say they are the grounds which the Commander-in-Chief considers necessary for the protection of the lives of the Crown forces and the suppression of rebellion.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Can the right hon. Gentleman lay before the House the instructions which are referred to as military orders?

Mr. BRIANT: Are we to assume that, prior to this order, reprisals were conducted for other than military purposes?

Mr. HENRY: No, Sir. You must make no such assumption.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I have an answer to my question, whether on military grounds it is not possible to avoid destroying the property of serving soldiers?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has had his answer, and must take it.

Sir S. HOARE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether the instructions that have been given by the Chief Secretary to the Commander-in-Chief will be laid on the table?

Mr. HENRY: I must ask for notice of that question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask for some answer to my question?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Government answer has been given, and if it does not satisfy the hon. Member, I cannot help it.

ARRESTS AND DEPORTATIONS.

Captain W. BENN: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has taken the opinion of the Law Officers as to his power to arrest persons in England and deport them under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act; and upon what words in the Act he is acting?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I have nothing to add to the reply given on Monday, 6th June, except that the words of the Act are: "His Majesty in Council may issue Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), for securing the restoration and maintenance of order in Ireland."

Captain BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the remainder of the passage is "conferring on the Lord-
Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary." If that is so, how do the powers come to be conferred under the Regulations of the Home Secretary?

Mr. SHORTT: Because they are conferred by Regulation.

Captain BENN: The point of the question is, are the Regulations in consonance with the original Act? If so, what are the words? May I have an answer?

Major M. WOOD: How are you going to restore order in Ireland by taking alleged criminals from England to Ireland?

Mr. SHORTT: They are not at liberty.

Captain BENN: What are the words in the original Act conferring on the right hon. Gentleman the power to make these Regulations?

Mr. SHORTT: That is the question which I have already answered.

LEGAL OFFICIAL (POST OFFICE).

Sir J. BUTCHER: 27.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that one of the legal advisers of the General Post Office in London and his wife have been in close touch with Michael Collins and other members of the Irish republican army in Ireland, and that they have entertained Michael Collins at their house in Ireland; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Kellaway): The officer referred to was dismissed some months ago.

Sir J. BUTCHER: What post has this officer held?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Solicitor.

AIRCRAFT.

Viscount CURZON: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether any lighter-than-air aircraft have been or are being used to assist military and police operations in Ireland; and, if not, before such aircraft are scrapped or otherwise disposed of, could they be employed to assist in such operations and for the detection of hostile operations by rebel forces?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): Lighter-than-air craft have not been and are not being used for
operations in Ireland. The possibility of their employment was carefully considered and was decided against for good and sufficient reasons.

REVENUE.

Captain BENN: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state what was the Budget Estimate of receipts from Ireland for the first five months of the year; and how much of the amount is expected to be realized?

Mr. H. YOUNG: The Budget Estimates relate to the financial year as a whole, and it is not possible to allocate a definite proportion of that Estimate to the first five months of the year. Moreover, in estimating the revenue for the year, no attempt is normally made to estimate separately the receipts for England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales.

Captain BENN: In point of fact, is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer in possession of some estimate of what the receipts from Ireland will be, and, if so, what is that estimate?

Mr. YOUNG: I do not think that is so. Certain estimates have been put forward recently, as to revenue attributable to Ireland, which is, as my hon. and gallant Friend will realise, a different thing from revenue received in Ireland.

APPOINTMENTS.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 89.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that a vacancy has existed for the past four or five months in the post of shipping inspector at the North Wall in Dublin, under the Department of Agriculture, and that a considerable number of applications for that post have been made by pre-War pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary; and whether, in filling up this post and other posts under the Irish Government at Dublin Castle and elsewhere, due regard will be given to the claims of pre-War Royal Irish Constabulary pensioners who are in a state of extreme financial destitution?

Mr. HENRY: The reply to all parts of the question is in the affirmative.

TRADE BOYCOTT.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 90.
asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to a document now being circulated
in Ireland, dated 14th April, 1921, and headed Importation and Sale of British Goods Prohibition Order (No. 2), and purporting to come from the Trade Department of Dail Eireann, and to be signed by Earnan de Blaghd, Minister of Trade, which orders that, on and after 14th May, 1921, the importation and sale of certain specified articles of British make is prohibited, and asserts that the purchase of any articles prohibited by the decree of Dail Eireann is an act of treachery; whether he can say who and what is Earnan de Blaghd; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. HENRY: My attention has been called to this document, which is one of a series emanating from the same source. The steps taken in regard to these publications consist in the orders issued to the police that they are to be destroyed when found. The real name of the person whose signature appears on this particular document is Ernest Blyth, who prefers to be known as Earnan de Blaghd. He has been under notice for seditious behaviour since 1914, and has been several times imprisoned. He was elected to represent North Monaghan in this House at the General Election of 1918. He was last arrested in September, 1919, and sentenced by court-martial to one year's imprisonment with hard labour. A few weeks later he was released under the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-Health) Act, and was due to return to custody in December, 1919, but failed to do so, and has since evaded arrest.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, if he can find the persons who are responsible for issuing these impudent orders and purporting to exercise the functions of the Government, they will be prosecuted?

Mr. HENRY: Certainly.

CROWN FORCES, BELFAST.

Mr. DEVLIN: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary whether he is prepared to make any report to the House as to the assassination of Alexander McBride, merchant, Cardigan Drive, Belfast, and William Kerr, Old Lodge Road, Belfast; whether he is aware that William Halfpenny was an ex-soldier who served 3½ years in the Royal Field Artillery in France, being
wounded twice and gassed once, and whose four brothers also served in the Army during the War; whether William Kerr has a brother, a sergeant-major, in the Army, at present serving in Mesopotamia; whether these murders took place in the early hours of Sunday morning last during curfew; whether parties of armed men, some of them disguised, and provided with motor conveyances, drove to the houses of these three men, dragged them from their beds, took them from their homes, and shot them under circumstances of inconceivable brutality; whether the sister of one of the murdered men has stated that some of the assassins were in uniform; what steps have been taken, if any, to discover the assassins; and whether this is only one of a series of similar murders that have taken place in Belfast during curfew hours within the last few months; and what steps he proposes to take to bring the offenders to justice?

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary whether he has any information regarding the occurrences in Belfast during the week-end?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): Disturbances of a serious nature occurred in various part of the city of Belfast on the 11th instant, following the murder of a police constable in the Falls Road on the 10th instant. The most serious of these disturbances took place in the York Street area. It originated in stone throwing and revolver firing between rival crowds which collected. The police were immediately on the scene, and were obliged to draw their revolvers and fire, with the result that 16 persons were conveyed to, and treated in, the various hospitals for gunshot wounds. In the Falls Road area considerable party excitement continued to manifest itself, especially in Ashmore and Conway Street. The constant watchfulness of the police prevented still worse disturbances. The three murders mentioned by the hon. Member for the Falls Division in the question took place in Belfast between 1 a.m. and 2 a.m. on the 12th instant, and, I am informed, by men in civilian dress under circumstances substantially as stated in the question. I am not aware of the statements alleged to have been made by the sister of one of the deceased
men. Every effort has been made, and will be made, to trace the murderers and to bring them to justice.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House how it was that three motor cars entered different districts at a given hour clearly all coming from the same place, and went into the houses of these people, dragged them out and murdered them; what were the police doing, and why were these motor cars allowed to travel within curfew hours at one o'clock in the morning?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have done my best to answer the hon. Member's question.

Mr. DEVLIN: Are we to understand that this policy of Governmental assassination, which is the policy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] This is the third series of murders of a similar character which have been carried out in Belfast during the last 12 months. Am I to understand, since no redress was given to the relatives of the murdered men in the past, that this is another attempt to cloak your own villainy?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to use such terms in a question.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question as to whether there is any redress for the people who have been murdered in this way?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put down any further questions.

Mr. DEVLIN: I beg to give notice that I shall move the Adjournment of the House upon this question.

POLICE FORCES (NEWSPAPER ARTICLE).

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary whether Lieut.-General Jeudwine, the G.O.C. 5th Division at the Curragh, has reprinted in his Divisional Orders with his own approving comment a newspaper article praising the Regular Army and criticising the so-called "Black-and-Tans" and police, and whether the right hon. Gentleman will take steps to avoid a repetition of such criticism by officers of the Army, in view of the importance of all forces of the Crown in Ireland working in co-operation and without jealousy to put down murder in Ireland?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have seen the statement referred to, and I am sure that General Jeudwine had no intention of casting any reflection upon the police forces in Ireland. The police and military are working in the closest co-operation, and the discipline of both forces, working as they are under conditions of great difficulty and extreme provocation, is splendid.

Sir S. HOARE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that this is another instance which shows that what is wanted in Ireland is unity of command?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the Chief Secretary not aware that the "Weekly Summary" mostly consists of newspaper extracts containing the most violent denunciations of his political opponents?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No, I am not aware of that. More than that, I am aware that it is not true.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the "Weekly Summary" describes the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) as being a member of the murder gang?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No, I am not aware of that.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a long way from the question on the Paper.

Colonel ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman issue instructions that the military authorities in Ireland are not to cast reflections on the Royal Irish Constabulary?

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Did not the Lord-Lieutenant himself cast reflections upon them?

Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman call for a copy of this article which has appeared in these Orders, and then he can say whether, in his judgment, it does or does not cast serious reflections upon his own troops?

Mr. MILLS: In order that Members may form an impartial opinion on this matter, can the right hon. Gentleman so arrange that every hon. Member of this House can have a copy of the "Weekly Summary," instead of only a few hon. Members receiving it?

Mr. O'CONNOR: I hope every, hon. Member will have an opportunity of seeing the article referred to. May I ask whether the article described as making an attack upon the Royal Irish Constabulary was not an attack on the Black-and-Tans? [HON. MEMBERS: "On both!"] I gather that it would be the Royal Irish Constabulary, which is a temporary force, which has been added. Was not the condemnation with regard to the Black-and-Tans, and is it not a fact that those remarks represented the opinion of a huge majority of decent soldiers in Ireland and in England, and do they not correspond with the statements made by the Viceroy as to the abominable crimes committed by this Force?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I regret that I cannot answer all these supplementary questions, but I can say that the Viceroy made no statement about "abominable crimes" committed by the police in Ireland. He made certain statements about horrible crimes committed by certain members of the police force, and he referred particularly to the murder of Canon Magner, which everybody condemns.

Mr. DEVLIN: Did not the Viceroy mention Black-and-Tans in his speech?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: With reference to the publication called the "Weekly Summary," a copy of it is laid in the Library every week. As for calling for a report from the General, I will ask him to let me see a copy of the Order. I am convinced that he never intended to make any reflections upon the police force in Ireland.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Why do not Members read it in the "Daily Mail"?

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is it not proof that they are fed up with your dirty work?

WEST INDIES (REPRESENTATIVE INSTITUTIONS).

Mr. G. MURRAY: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that there is a strong desire for more representative constitutions in certain of the West Indian Colonies; whether he will consider the desirability of sending out next winter someone like
the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies to inquire into the whole matter and to devise more suitable forms of government than at present exist; and whether he will consider as well the desirability of entrusting to anyone he may send the task of drawing up, in consultation and collaboration with leading persons in the West Indies, a scheme for a central advisory council to deal with the common affairs of those Colonies, with the object of submitting such scheme for the consideration of the various Legislatures after they have been reconstructed?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. E. Wood): I have not hitherto received any conclusive evidence that a general desire for a constitutional change exists in any West Indian Colony, except Grenada. My hon. Friend is aware that steps are being taken to effect an alteration in the Grenada Constitution. As was stated in reply to the hon. Member for Chelsea on the 7th June, I will, without committing myself in any way, consider the suggestion contained in the second half of the question; but I am disposed to think that the object of any such inquiry, if undertaken, should rather be to assist His Majesty's Government to estimate the trend of local public opinion, than to initiate schemes for political changes.

BRITISH GUIANA (RICE EMBARGO).

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the governor of British Guiana has declined to remove the embargo on the export of rice from the Colony, which was established as a precautionary measure during the War; whether there is any justification for this control of an important local industry two and a half years after the cessation of hostilities; whether he is aware that the continuance of control is causing grave dissatisfaction in the Colony and discontent and distress among the grocers; and whether he will recommend to His Excellency the desirability of the removal of the embargo, so that the important rice industry may return to its normal condition and its progress be governed by the ordinary
laws of supply and demand, having regard especially to the fact that there is now ample rice available for general requirements?

Mr. WOOD: The Governor reported in November, 1920, that, owing to a probable shortage in the supply of rice before the 1921 crop could be harvested, he had prohibited the export until October, 1921. He is still satisfied that the supply for local requirements is not excessive, and, as contracts have been made on the basis of the Government's policy for the year as announced in the autumn of 1920, I consider that intervention on my part would be justified neither by the interests of the consumer nor by those of the industry as a whole. I have no doubt that the Governor will remove the prohibition at the earliest practicable date.

COLONIAL SERVICE.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any competitive examination is held for candidates for the Colonial service; and, if not, whether he will take steps to abolish the system of nomination and to bring the Colonial service into line with the diplomatic and foreign services by introducing a system of admission by competitive examination under the Civil Service Commission?

Mr. WOOD: The system of competitive examination for cadets and police probationers in Ceylon, Malaya, and Hong Kong, which was suspended during the War, is being resumed. The possibility of a similar system being adopted for the administrative services of other Colonies has been considered, but I do not think this course possible or desirable in present circumstances. I would point out that there is no unified Colonial service, but that the Government service of each Colony is distinct, and this fact and the diversity of conditions as between the various Colonies are obstacles to a system of competitive examination.

Sir S. HOARE: What is the reason for reviving the system in Ceylon and other places where it is in force and saying that it is not opportune to introduce it into other Colonies?

Mr. WOOD: My hon. Friend is, I think, aware that the system as applied to the
cases named in the question is only of limited application and that within those limits it has been found possible to apply it. I must not be taken as prejudging the question in the sense in which my hon. Friend wishes to see it reopened. All I have done is to point out the serious obstacles to introducing the new system at this moment.

Sir C. YATE: Would it not be better to open out the Colonial service so as to give a better chance of promotion to those who belong to it?

Mr. WOOD: I think that there is a great deal to be said from that point of view. Of course, my hon. Friend is aware that the great difficulty in many cases is financial.

EAST AFRICA (OFFICIAL SALARIES).

Sir S. HOARE: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the differences in salary of officials in Kenya Colony, Uganda, and Nigeria; and whether he will inquire into these differences with a view to seeing whether they are still justified by climatic or other reasons?

Mr. WOOD: I am aware of the differences in salary referred to, and, as my hon. Friend is aware, these have been in some degree attributable to climatic and other differences between the Colonies concerned. At the present time, however, financial limitations are such as to make it impossible to offer the same salaries in East as in West Africa, and I do not see, therefore, that any useful purpose would be served by the inquiry suggested.

LABOUR ORGANISATIONS, PORTSMOUTH.

Mr. BOWERMAN: 21.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that the Chief Constable of Portsmouth has addressed a communication to various branch secretaries of labour organisations, requesting to be supplied with the number of members belonging to the unions in the district, to enable him to complete his records at headquarters; whether such circular letter has been issued with his knowledge and approval; and, if so, will he state the purpose for which the information asked for is required?

Mr. SHORTT: These inquiries were not made with my knowledge or approval. I have asked the Chief Constable, who had overlooked a circular I issued more than a year ago, to discontinue them.

HOLLOWAY PRISON.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 22.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware of the bad condition of the food frequently served to the prisoners in Holloway Prison and, in particular, the bad fish and sour milk offered to prisoners; that complaints have been made frequently to the governor, the doctor and the visiting committee of magistrates, but without apparent result; whether it is proposed to abolish the hospital at the prison, and to otherwise increase the severity of the regime; how many girls under 17 years of age have been imprisoned at Holloway during the last 12 months; and whether any girls under 17 are there now?

Mr. SHORTT: The allegations which the hon. and gallant Member repeats are without foundation; no complaints of the food have been made to the visiting committee. Members of the visiting committee constantly test the quality of the food, and are satisfied with it. Individual prisoners sometimes complain of the food, and on one occasion the fish supplied to a prisoner was found to be insufficiently cooked, and she was given something else, but otherwise the complaints have proved to be groundless. No complaints appear to have been made of the milk being sour.

The number of girls under 17 years of age are as follows:


In custody during the past twelve months:


Convicted
6


Remanded
27


In custody at present time:



Convicted
1


Remanded
3

It is not proposed to abolish the hospital, or to increase the severity of the régime.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted any prisoner with regard to the quality of the food? Is he aware that prisoners who have been there make these statements?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must put some specific question.

Mr. LUNN: Have any of the visiting justices any personal pocket interest in the catering for this establishment?

Mr. LYLE: Is it not true that the waiting is shockingly bad, and that the coffee and liqueurs are not of proper quality?

GAMES OF CHANCE.

Viscount CURZON: 23.
asked the Home Secretary whether action is being taken by the Metropolitan Police against those individuals who play the game of poker; whether such action is being taken all over the country universally; why the game of poker is singled out; why is similar action not taken against those individuals who play other card games, such as old maid, beggar my neighbour, nap, bezique, bridge, etc.; and if similar action is contemplated against those who indulge in these unsafe and demoralising games of chance?

Mr. SHORTT: I am informed by the Commissioner that action is not being taken against all individuals who play poker, but only against those persons who are responsible for it being played in such a way as to involve a breach of the law as to gaming houses, and similar action is taken with regard to the illegal playing of other games of chance when evidence is forthcoming. The question whether the law has been infringed in any particular case is, of course, one for the Court to decide, but the suggestions made by the Noble Lord in the latter part of the question will receive appropriate consideration.

Major BARNETT: Has the attention of the Metropolitan Police been drawn to the lottery which is about to take place in connection with the Victory Loan?

Mr. SHORTT: Yes; I think it has.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES.

Mr. MILLS: 29.
asked the Postmaster General whether the administrative work, such as payment of old age pensions, Army and Navy allowances, Inland
Revenue documents, licences, savings certificates, National Health and Unemployment Insurance, sales of stamps, entertainment stamps, and Income Tax stamps is paid for by the various Departments of State involved or whether these extraneous services are paid for out of sales of stamps and telegrams, etc.?

Mr. KELLAWAY: As explained in my statement on the Post Office Estimate, no part of the charge for the services referred to by the hon. Member falls on the ordinary customers of the Post Office.

Mr. MILLS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ordinary person fails to read into his speech any explanation of how these expenses are borne by the respective Departments involved?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I am sorry. I thought that I had made it quite clear that the charge of over £5,000,000 is met by the other Departments for whom these services are rendered, that they are shown in the commercial accounts, and that not a penny cost falls on the customers of the Post Office.

TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Mr. KIDD: 31.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the Post Office in Glasgow cannot give a telephone connection, in the event of a change of address, in less than a month, although all that is required is removal of the instrument from one office to another and connecting up to existing wires; and will he see that his Department is made more efficient in this respect?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, although delay in effecting telephone removals may occur in Glasgow, as elsewhere, when there is a shortage of exchange equipment, or underground wires. It is desirable that a month's notice of removal should, if possible, be given in order to facilitate the arrangement of the work generally.

Commander BELLAIRS: 32.
asked the Postmaster-General the increase in the number of telephones, respectively, in the United States of America and in the United Kingdom for the two years ended 31st December, 1920?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The increase in the number of telephones belonging to the Bell system (American Telephone and
Telegraph Company) and the companies connected with it, comprising 90 per cent. of the telephones in the United States, was 729,748 in 1919 and 806,188 in 1920. There are about 1,500 independent telephone companies in the United States, of which it is difficult to obtain accurate statistics. The increase in the number of telephones in the United Kingdom was 57,894 in 1919 and 75,027 in 1920.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is it not obvious that this great increase in the United States as compared with this country points to the superior efficiency of private enterprise?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I do not think that that should be pressed too far, because, as a matter of fact, the percentage increase in this country was greater than the percentage increase in the United States.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he had one telephone one year and two telephones next year there would be 100 per cent. increase?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I am quite aware of that.

Commander BELLAIRS: Then why use such an argument in the House?

Dr. M'DONALD: 34.
asked the Postmaster-General whether telephone subscribers who have been compelled to relinquish their instruments owing to change of address and cannot obtain a new installation will be compensated for that period during which they have not employed the service?

Mr. KELLAWAY: It is not the practice to compensate subscribers for the absence of telephone service in circumstances described by the hon. Members; but rebate is allowed for any period after the expiry of a month following the notice of removal during which a subscriber is without service. If the subscriber gives a month's notice of removal, as he is asked to do, he will lose nothing on his rental.

SAVINGS BANK DEPARTMENT (OVERTIME).

Mr. BRIANT: 33.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of part-time officers employed and whom it is intended to employ, for the purpose of reducing the excessive overtime in the women's
branches of the Savings Bank Department; and to what extent, if any, their employment has so far resulted in reduced overtime?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Approximately 200 part-time officers are employed and it is not at present proposed to increase the number. The arrangement has not yet reduced the amount of overtime as there are still heavy arrears of work to be overtaken.

Mr. BRIANT: Considering the large amount of unemployment amongst men and women, is it not possible to employ some of those men and women instead of allowing so much overtime?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I think the present part-time staff is the largest that could economically be used, and I am anxious that overtime should be severely reduced.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Then why not do it?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Because it is impossible.

SUNDAY DELIVERIES, MIDDLESBROUGH.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 35.
asked the Postmaster General whether he is aware that considerable apprehension exists amongst the members of the outside staff at the Middlesbrough Post Office that the cessation of Sunday deliveries may involve reductions in their weekly wages varying from 7s. to 17s.; and will he consider whether it is possible to lighten the burden that would thus fall on some of the lower-paid workers?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I am not aware of the exact amount of the reductions of Sunday pay involved at Middlesbrough. The effect of the abolition of Sunday posts upon the conditions of service of the staff is about to be discussed with their representatives.

AGRICULTURE ACT (ARBITRATORS' PANEL).

Mr. LANE-FOX: 40.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the panel of arbitrators under the Agriculture Act selected by the Lord Chief Justice has now been constituted; whether any disputes between landlord and tenant have yet come before them; and whether this machinery is working satisfactorily?

Major BARNSTON (Comptroller of the Household): I have been asked to reply. The Lord Chief Justice is now considering lists of arbitrators which have been submitted to him by the Ministry and the various institutions interested, and I understand that his Lordship will shortly be in a position to complete the panel to which my hon. Friend refers. Pending the completion of this panel, the Ministry has continued, with the concurrence of the parties interested, to appoint arbitrators on the lines hitherto adopted.

AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS, WAGES.

Mr. LAWSON: 41.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the average wage of an adult agricultural labourer in Great Britain as fixed by the various agricultural wages boards throughout the country?

Major BARNSTON: I have been asked to reply. The present weekly minimum wage for ordinary male agricultural workers aged 21 and over in England and Wales, as fixed by the Agricultural Wages Board, is in 35 counties 46s., but allowing for higher rates which are in force in the other counties it is calculated that the average weekly minimum wage throughout the country is about 46s. 7d. For information relating to the minimum wages in force in Scotland I must refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland.

Colonel ASHLEY: As a matter of fact, are not the earnings very much more than the minimum wage mentioned, seeing that the agricultural labourer nearly always receives a cottage at a rental greatly below the economic value?

Major BARNSTON: In some cases that is so.

Colonel ASHLEY: Is it not the case that the agricultural labourer gets a cottage and garden for 2s. 6d.?

Mr. ROYCE: Is there not a statutory charge of 3s. on those cottages?

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members should give notice of those detailed questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

WASHINGTON LABOUR CONVENTIONS.

Mr. G. BARNES: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can yet state a date
when the House can resume the Debate on the question of the Washington Conventions?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In view of the press of other business, I am quite unable to appoint a day for a continuation of this discussion at present.

Mr. BARNES: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to name a date inside the limit of two months?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot undertake to do that at this moment. We are in great difficulties about Parliamentary time.

Mr. BARNES: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to say that there will be a discussion during the Session?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am anxious to meet my right hon. Friend if I can, but I cannot say more at the present moment.

Mr. ROSE: Does that mean simply that the Government do not intend to resume the discussion?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I have just said that I am anxious to meet the request of my right hon. Friend, but that I am not able to say more than that at the present moment.

Mr. BARNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very bad feeling which will exist throughout the world, especially in Labour ranks, because of the answer he has given?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope not. If it be so, it will be because there is not appreciation of the difficulties in which we are placed.

COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE.

Mr. G. BARNES: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that non-ratification of the Statute of the permanent Court of International Justice by the States whose representatives signed the Protocol would render impossible the constitution of the Court by the Assembly at its meeting in September next, His Majesty's Government will use its good offices with the other States, signatories of the said Protocol, to secure early ratification?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not necessary to take any such step as is proposed
in the question. The Council of the League of Nations, on whom this duty properly devolves, have issued an urgent appeal to all members of the League to expedite their signature and ratification. I do not think that isolated action of a similar character by one of the States interested would add to the strength of that appeal, and there seems no reason to doubt that sufficient ratifications will be deposited by 1st August to enable the Court to be brought into being at the next meeting of the Assembly.

Sir J. D. REES: 51.
asked the Prime Minister if he will give the House any information regarding the probable cost of the proposed permanent Court of International Justice, the jurisdiction which this tribunal will possess, and the manner in which such judgments as it may deliver will be enforced?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that I am not in a position to furnish information as to the probable cost of the permanent Court of International Justice. No doubt provisional estimates will be submitted to the Assembly in September next should the Court have been constituted by then. I would refer my hon. Friend to the copy of the Statute of the proposed Court in the Library of the House as regards the latter parts of his question.

UPPER SILESIA.

Sir F. HALL: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether the German Government has protested against the Allied ultimatum sent to General Hofer, the commander of the so-called self-defence forces in Upper Silesia; whether the re-enlistment and despatch of reinforcements for General Hofer are going on unchecked; and whether, seeing that the adoption of this attitude by the Berlin Cabinet is a violation of the undertaking recently given with regard to disarmament and disbandment of troops, official or otherwise, he will state what measures are being taken to enforce compliance by Germany with her obligations in this matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative. The third part therefore does not arise.

GERMAN WAR CRIMINALS (TRIALS).

Mr. LYLE: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the unsatisfactory results of the trials of the minor War criminals at Leipzig, he will consider the desirability of making further efforts to bring to justice the master criminals who are now at large in Germany?

Mr. MILLS: Before an answer is given to that question will the hon. Member (Mr. Lyle) agree that the wording might be "at large in Holland" instead of "at large in Germany"?

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: And in Ireland, too.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Pollock): I have been asked to reply. I have nothing to add to the answers recently given to similar questions on the same subject.

GERMAN REPARATION.

Mr. GALBRAITH: 72.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the amount received in respect of the German Reparation (Recovery) Act?

Mr. YOUNG: The amount received under the German Reparation (Recovery) Act up to the 11th instant, inclusive, was £48,000.

Major M. WOOD: Is it still intended to deduct this from the German indemnity, seeing we have paid it ourselves?

Captain W. BENN: Have the German Government officially notified the exporters that they will refund the rebate?

Mr. YOUNG: I could not say on the spur of the moment. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will give me notice of that question.

HAGUE COURT OF ARBITRATION.

Mr. G. BARNES: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the request addressed by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations to members of the Court of Arbitration at the Hague, His Majesty's Government has considered the question of filling the four places in the Court at the Hague accorded to the British Empire, so that full weight may be attached to the nominations to the permanent Court made on behalf of the British Empire?

Sir J. D. REES: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government proposes to appoint members on behalf of the British Empire to the Court of Arbitration at the Hague; and, if so, with what object?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will answer these questions together. No, Sir; Lord Finlay is a member of the Court, and it is not proposed at present to fill the other three places. Although the new Permanent Court of International Justice will no doubt largely take the place of The Hague Court, the latter will continue to exist, and His Majesty's Government consider it desirable to keep places vacant in case any matter is referred to it of concern to the Dominions, who are not represented separately on The Hague Court, and who should, in that event, have a voice in the selection of additional British judges.

Sir J. D. REES: Will there be any guarantee that The Hague Court will not hatch another Declaration of London or similar instrument of destruction?

GREECE AND TURKEY.

Mr. LYLE: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the uncertainty arising from the situation in the Near East, the Allies intend to make further efforts to conclude the peace treaty with Turkey; and whether there is any undertaking with the present Greek Government to assist in any way its policy in Asia Minor in particular and in the Near East in general?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers which I gave on this subject yesterday.

TRADE BOARDS.

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the critical economic condition of the country, he will consider the advisability of the immediate abolition of trade boards except in the few trades in which there is a genuine possibility of sweating?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): The Trade Board Act, 1918, provides that a trade may be withdrawn
from the operation of the Acts if the Minister of Labour is of opinion that the conditions of employment have been so altered as to render the application of the Acts to the trade unnecessary. I have no evidence that conditions in the trades covered by the Acts have so changed as to justify their withdrawal from the Acts. As already stated, I am proceeding with caution in the present difficult circumstances, and I have no doubt that the Trade Boards will have full regard to present conditions in their decisions. I am not prepared to agree to the general abolition of Trade Boards.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

UNEMPLOYMENT FUND.

Captain W. BENN: 57.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether a Supplementary Estimate will be presented in connection with the insurance deficit; and, if so, when, and for what amount?

Sir M. BARLOW: There is at present no deficit on the Unemployment Fund, to which, I presume, the hon. and gallant Member refers. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has already, on the 8th June, submitted to the House the measures proposed for meeting the deficit which is anticipated during the ensuing 12 months. The hon. and gallant Member should also see the Report by the Government Actuary on those proposals (Command Paper 1336), a copy of which I shall be happy to send him. So far as those measures may involve a charge on the Parliamentary Vote of the Ministry of Labour for the financial year 1921–22, it will be necessary to prepare a Supplementary Estimate, and this is now under consideration.

BENEFIT.

Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: 84.
asked the Ministry of Labour whether by the new Unemployment Insurance Bill it is intended to reduce the benefit from 20s. to 15s. for men and from 16s. to 12s. for women; whether he is aware that in many cases men earning £3 and upwards and working three days per week under the existing law may also draw the £1 unemployment benefit, whilst others, unable to obtain any employment, draw the same amount of benefit; and, if this is so, will he consider the advisability of
adopting a sliding scale of unemployment benefit to be paid according to the earning capacity of the individual or the days of employment per week?
May I point out that owing to a technical error the drawing of £1 unemployment benefit in the question should be 10s., but the error does not affect the principle of the question.

Sir M. BARLOW: The answer I had prepared is as follows. The facts are as stated in the first part of the question. It is not the fact that persons working three days per week may draw the full benefit of 20s. per week? A person working half-time as described would in no circumstances be entitled to more than half the weekly rate of benefit. The Unemployment Insurance Acts already provide for a proportionate reduction in the amount of benefit paid according to the days of employment per week, but it would be impracticable to adopt a sliding scale according to the earning capacity of the individual.

SPECIAL SCHEMES.

Mr. MYERS: 85.
asked the Minister of Labour how many special schemes have been approved under the provisions of Section 18 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, and the industries covered by those schemes?

Sir M. BARLOW: No special schemes have yet been formally approved under this Section, but it is proposed, subject to the consideration of objections, to make a Special Order, of which notice was published on the 20th May, approving such a scheme for the insurance industry.

MINERS' BALLOT (POSTER).

Mr. GILLIS: 58.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the poster on the hoardings urging the miners to take a ballot on the questions at issue in connection with the present stoppage, has been issued by the Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the negative.

JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT.

Lieut.-Colonel NALL: 59.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether for some years the Board of Education and the Ministry of Labour have maintained overlapping and
antagonistic committees dealing with juvenile employment; and can immediate steps be taken by the Government to alter this state of things?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware that better co-ordination between the work of the Local Education Authorities and of the Employment Exchanges, under the Education (Choice of Employment) Act, 1910, and the Labour Exchanges Act, 1909, in advising and assisting young persons in choosing and obtaining employment is required, and I am happy to say that Lord Chelmsford has accepted an invitation to inquire into the matter on behalf of the Government with a view to arriving at an early settlement of the matter.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Sir ALFRED YEO: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the position of the old age pensioners in regard to the allowance from outside sources; and whether he will consider the advisability of framing Regulations so as to allow societies and firms to supplement the Government allowance without making a deduction from the income of these old people, in order to meet the difficulties of the cost of living and thus prevent many of them seeking help from the Poor Law and a saving to the nation of much money?

Mr. YOUNG: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on this subject to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York City on 31st May last, and to the statement on this subject made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Debate on the 11th May.

Sir A. YEO: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if this thing was taken in hand and tackled in the proper way it would save the country a great deal of unrest and a great amount of money?

INCOME TAX.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that grave embarrassment is caused to those who depend on small fixed incomes by the delay in repayment of Income Tax deducted at the source;
and that in these cases it means that the applicant often has to live on credit during the months which elapse between the receipt of his claim and repayment being made; and whether steps will be taken to remedy this grievance?

Mr. YOUNG: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave on this subject yesterday to the hon. Member for South Kensington. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of that reply.

Commander BELLAIRS: 74.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any calculation has been made, and, if so, with what result, in regard to the cost of exempting the superannuation funds of societies from Income Tax on their investments as recommended by the Royal Commission; and whether, seeing that these funds are of great benefit, financial and moral, to the State, the Government will this year carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission?

Mr. YOUNG: It is estimated that the cost of the exemption to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers would be about £100,000 a year at the present rate of Income Tax. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply I gave him on the 24th May. Clauses on this subject have been put down for discussion during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, and my hon. and gallant Friend will no doubt think it more desirable not to anticipate that discussion.

Mr. BOWERMAN: 44.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that summonses for nonpayment of Income Tax have been served upon workmen in the offices in which they were at work instead of their place of residence; and whether this practice has the sanction of the Somerset House authorities?

Mr. YOUNG: I am not aware of any circumstances as mentioned by the right hon. Member. I should observe that officers serving such summonses act under the directions and authority of the court issuing the summonses, and not of the Board of Inland Revenue, which has, therefore, no control over the manner and place of service.

Mr. BOWERMAN: May I take it that the hon. Gentleman recognises what a serious thing it is for a revenue officer to go into the office where a man is working and serve a summons on him before his fellow workmen?

Mr. YOUNG: I quite understand the reasons for the question of the right hon. Gentlemen, and I have attempted to explain to him that the service of the summons was by an officer of the petty sessional court acting under the direction of that court, and not by that of the Board of Inland Revenue; it is not, therefore, open to them to interfere.

CLUBS (TAXATION).

Mr. LANE-FOX: 66.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the injustice of the present tax upon clubs resulting from the increased taxation of beer, wines, and spirits, and that, as a result of the present duties, the average club pays nearly four times as much in taxes as the average licence-holder; and whether he will consider making the conditions of taxation as between these two classes more fair?

Mr. YOUNG: It should be observed that if a comparison is made between the taxation of clubs and the taxation of licence-holders it should be made as between clubs and public-houses, because it is only in these two classes of premises that all intoxicating liquors can be supplied or sold for consumption on the premises. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has caused inquiry to be made in regard to the comparative taxation of clubs and public-houses, and he finds that the average taxation of the great majority of clubs is, at present, below that of public-houses. He is not prepared to recommend any alteration of the conditions of taxation as between these two classes.

AUSTRIA (CREDIT).

Mr. WISE: 69.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of the suggested credit the Government is going to lend to Austria, and what is the security; and whether the credit will be so employed as to benefit the trade of this country?

Mr. YOUNG: It is not suggested that any further loan or credit should be granted by His Majesty's Government to Austria. The essence of the plan which the Finance Committee of the League of Nations has prepared in collaboration with the Austrian Government is that the external loans or advances required should be provided through ordinary market channels in this and other countries, and I understand that assurances have been obtained of considerable sums from these sources as soon as the existing liens on Austrian assets are released.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that arrangements regarding these liens have been completely upset, particularly as a result of the British Government preventing Austrian exports to this country?

Mr. YOUNG: I am not aware of any effect of that sort.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: Have we agreed to the release of the liens?

Mr. YOUNG: I cannot answer, without notice, further questions on the subject.

REVENUE BUILDINGS.

Mr. HANNON: 75.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the precise reasons for the increase in expenditure on Revenue buildings, which in 1913–14 amounted to £640,000, and for which the estimated amount for the current year is £2,141,000?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. GILMOUR (for the First Commissioner of Works): It is impossible to deal adequately with this matter by way of question and answer, but the general reasons for the increase are the need for increased accommodation for the collection of the Inland Revenue, now over seven times that of 1913–14; the arrears of work, particularly maintenance, accumulated during the War; and the increase in the cost of wages and materials since 1913–14.

LEEDS AND BRADFORD (EXTENSION).

Mr. LANE-FOX: 80.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has yet received
the report of his inspector on the proposed extension of the county boroughs of Leeds and Bradford; if so, whether he has yet had time to consider this report; and when he will be able to announce the action in the matter which he proposes to recommend to the House?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): The reports referred to have been received, and are now under the consideration of the Department. I hope to be able to announce my decision shortly.

Mr. LANE-FOX: Will no Provisional Order or Bill embodying any Provisional Order probably be brought in before Christmas?

Sir A. MOND: I cannot say.

ELECTION REGISTERS.

Mr. HAYDN JONES: 81.
asked the Minister of Health what was the total sum expended, in the last year for which returns are available, in preparing, etc., the register of electors in the counties and boroughs of England and Wales; what portion is borne by the Exchequer and by the local authorities, respectively; and whether, in the interests of economy, he has considered the advisability of compiling one register only per annum?

Mr. SHORTT: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The total payment in respect of registration expenses in the financial year 1920–1921 in England and Wales was £1,177,215, borne as to half by the Exchequer and as to half by the local authorities. Certain substantial administrative economies introduced during 1920 did not, however, take full effect till the latter part of the year; and the cost is expected to be lower in future years. The question of compiling one annual register only is under consideration by the Government.

BRITISH CELLULOSE COMPANY.

Mr. WISE: 70.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount the Government has invested and lent to the British Cellulose and Chemical Company, Limited; and can he give any indication of the future prospects of the company?

Mr. YOUNG: With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave yesterday in reply to questions by the hon. and gallant Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) and the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Lort-Williams). As regards the latter part of the question, my right hon. Friend is not in a position to express an opinion as to the future prospects of the company.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when the prospectus was issued inviting subscriptions to this company, the company had not yet discovered the means of making artificial silk which was capable of taking a dye, and may I ask whether the representatives of the Government were responsible for this very questionable proceeding?

Mr. WISE: I understand that the answer yesterday was the amount the Government had invested in this company. Have they lent any money beside that?

Mr. YOUNG: I think the answer I gave yesterday relates to the whole of the present outstanding financial ties between the Government and the company.

PRINTING AND STATIONERY (COST).

Mr. HANNON: 76.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the extent to which the increase in the cost of printing and stationery, which amounted in the financial year 1913–14 to £1,060,000, and which is estimated in the current year at £4,187,000, is due to increased printing rates and how much to the increased volume of printing which is now being carried out?

Mr. YOUNG: As the reply contains a considerable number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following table will, I hope, give the hon. Member the information he desires:

Estimated expenditure for 1921–22.
Level of present prices (1913–14 = 100).
Estimated expenditure for 1921–22 on basis of pre-war prices.
1913–14 Audited expenditure.





£

£
£


Printing
…
…
2,309,000*
253
913,000
459,000


Paper
…
…
1,455,000
400
364,000
444,000


Binding
…
…
228,000
267
85,000
96,000





3,992,000
—
1,362,000
999,000


Other expenditure
…
…
1,095,000
‡
—
234,000


Total gross expenditure
…
5,087,000
—
—
1,233,000


Receipts
…
…
900,000†
—
—
173,000


Net expenditure
…
…
4,187,000
—
—
1,060,000


Other expenditure includes miscellaneous stores, e.g., typewriters, pens, pencils, ink, etc., and books and maps, salaries and carriage and transit.


* Includes £700,000 in respect of the Representation of the People Act, 1918.


† Includes receipts of £370,000 in respect of repayments by local authorities under the Representation of the People Act, 1918.


‡ An average figure for the increase in rates cannot be given owing to the wide range of articles and the variation in the increases.

GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (RATES).

Mr. HANNON: 77.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can assign the exact causes of the increases of the rates on Government property from £789,000 in the financial year 1913–14 to the estimated amount of £2,475,000 in the current financial year?

Mr. YOUNG: The increase is due to (a) the greater number and extent of properties now occupied by the Government as compared with 1913–14; and (b) the great rise that has occurred in the poundage of local rates since that year.

PROFITEERING ACTS (INQUIRIES).

Mr. MYERS: 87.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when it is proposed to publish the findings of the various Subcommittees appointed by the Standing Committees on trusts and the investigation of prices, whose Reports were completed before 19th May?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): Most of the Reports not yet published are already with the printers, and will be issued as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

SIBERIA.

Mr. LUNN: 92.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received a Note from the Russian Government protesting against the invasion by Japan of the Far-Eastern Republic; and what reply has been returned by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: A Note has been received from the Soviet Government, but in view of the baseless allegations against His Majesty's Government which it contained, it has been returned to M. Krassin as unacceptable.

Mr. LUNN: 93.
asked whether His Majesty's Government made any representations to our Japanese Allies to induce them to refrain from the invasion of Siberia?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: So far as His Majesty's Government is aware, the Japanese have no intention of invading Siberia. The answer to the question is, therefore, in the negative.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that the Japanese have turned out the Government at Vladivostok?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think I have answered that in the negative.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there not at the moment a large body of Japanese troops at Vladivostok, which is Russian territory; what are they doing there?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: It does not mean because they are there that it is an invasion.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that they are certainly at Vladivostok, also up to Nikolaievsk, and as far as the Usuri Valley?

Mr. G. MURRAY: Is it not the fact that they have been there for two or three years?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: That does not make any difference!

SINN FEIN REPRESENTATIVES.

Mr. MILLS: 95.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to refute the statements made regarding a Sinn Fein Embassy at Moscow; and can he state the whereabouts of Mr. Connolly, who, it was alleged, is acting as consul?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: It is understood that there are at present in Moscow certain persons, of whom Mr. Connolly is one, who claim to represent Sinn Fein.

Mr. MILLS: Would the hon. Gentleman be surprised to know that I have received a letter from—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the facts are as stated to him personally, and that I have had a letter from Mr. Connolly, whom I had not known before, written from an address in Ireland, and repudiating this statement as one of many errors printed in the "Morning Post"?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have had some conversation with the hon. Gentleman, but I do not understand him to challenge the answer I have just given.

RIOTS, ALEXANDRIA.

Mr. LUNN: 94.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the bodies of all foreigners killed in the recent riots at Alexandria have been medically examined, and that the exhumation has proved that no foreigner was burnt either
alive or dead; and whether, if he is not so aware, he will take steps to ascertain the facts and to prevent reports being issued by the Press as to the burning alive of foreigners by Egyptians on the ground that they are false and calculated to prejudice the public mind in regard to the forthcoming negotiations between the two countries?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I greatly regret to say that one case of burning during the recent riots at Alexandria has been officially certified. The facts concerning the certified case are as follows: An Italian was set on fire after receiving blows and being stabbed in the chest. The Police Medical Officer of Health has made a statement that the man was still alive when he was set on fire. The Assistant Commandant of Police saw the man burning and states that when he had extinguished the flames the man was dead. The Police Medical Officer of Health has certified that death was due to burning. There is also some evidence, which is now being checked, tending to show that the mob attempted to burn the corpse of a murdered Greek.

RABIES.

Captain Sir HAMILTON BENN: 42.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give the dates of the latest cases of rabies that have occurred in England, Scotland, and Wales, respectively; and whether he can now say when the Muzzling Order will be withdrawn?

Major BARNSTON: I have been asked to reply. The most recent outbreaks of rabies in England occurred at Southampton on 6th June, and at Salisbury on 7th June, 1921. There has been no recent outbreak of rabies in Scotland. In Wales, the last outbreak of rabies occurred on the 8th September, 1920. It is not possible at present to give any indication as to when the Muzzling Orders will be withdrawn from the scheduled districts in the case of Southampton and Salisbury. No Muzzling Orders have been recently applied to Scotland. As regards Wales the Muzzling Order was withdrawn on the 1st May, 1921.

LETTERS (POLICE ACTION).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 20.
asked the Home Secretary whether, as the Chief
Constable of Warwickshire exceeded his duty in showing Mr. Hunt's letter to his employer, he will see that Mr. Hunt is compensated for the damage done to him thereby, or is it to be understood that this and further mistakes of the same sort are not regarded by His Majesty's Government as either punishable or rectifiable?

Mr. SHORTT: The Chief Constable acted in the way he thought right in a matter within his discretion. If Mr. Hunt thinks he has suffered any wrong, the Courts are open to him. I cannot interfere in the matter.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has not the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the Chief Constable acted incorrectly in conveying this man's letter, which he had got hold of, to the man's employers, thereby getting the man dismissed from his employment; under these circumstances was the Chief Constable not to be punished unless he promises not to do it again?

Mr. SHORTT: No, Sir.

LICENSING REFORM CONFERENCE.

Mr. BROAD: (by Private Notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is in a position to state who are to be the members of the conference to be set up on licensing, and what are the terms of reference?

Colonel GRETTON: (by Private Notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal if the names of the members invited to attend the Conference on the licensing laws can be announced to the House, and also the terms of reference to the Conference?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall answer these questions together. Yes, Sir. I am glad to be able to announce that my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General has consented to preside over the Conference, and the following hon. Members have accepted invitations to serve as members of the Conference:

Sir Ryland Adkins.
Viscountess Astor.
Sir John Baird.
Mr. Briant.
Mr. Broad.
Captain Evans.
Captain Fitzroy.
242
Sir Henry Foreman.
Colonel Gretton.
Mr. Inskip.
Mr. Kidd.
Captain O'Grady.
Mr. Robert Richardson.
Mr. Seddon.
Mr. Wintringham.
Sir George Younger.
The terms of reference will be as follow:
To consider, with reference to the Law of Licensing, how best to adapt to times of Peace the experience obtained during the period of the War.

Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: Will this inquiry extend to Ireland? If so, why are there no Irish Members on it?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is now a matter for the Irish Parliament.

Mr. DEVLIN: Considering that this question has been put by a Member from Ulster and that this matter affects Ireland, and if this Parliament still controls Ireland, will the right hon. Gentleman not put a Member from Ireland on the Commission?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I think that now that the Irish have Parliaments for themselves, we may, perhaps, be permitted to manage our own affairs.

Commander BELLAIRS: May I ask why the original intention has been departed from not to appoint partisans on either side?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The original intention has not been departed from, if I may say so with respect to my hon. and gallant Friend. The original intention was to get a representative conference together, and I think we have been fortunate in securing such a body.

Mr. BRIANT: Will any of the existing restrictions be taken off pending the Report of the Conference?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot answer that now.

ENGINEERING INDUSTRY DISPUTE.

Mr. ROSE: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a serious crisis is pending in the engineering industry owing to the refusal
of the employers to suspend the notices in order that a ballot may be taken by the unions affected; that this proceedure is calculated to provoke a calamitous disturbance of this important industry; and whether, in view of the industrial conditions, already dangerous to the well-being of the community, he will take immediate steps to bring pressure to bear upon the employers to give the workmen's representatives reasonable facilities to consult the members of their unions?

Sir M. BARLOW: My right hon. Friend is in close touch with the parties to this dispute. In view of the fact that negotiations are still in progress, I think it undesirable to make any statement on the matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I, in consequence of the Motion for the Adjournment of the House secured by the hon. Member for the Falls Division of Belfast (Mr. Devlin), ask the Leader of the House a question with regard to the Debate on the Colonial Vote to-day? It is a very important Debate, and large numbers of Members want to take part in it. Could my right hon. Friend at once arrange to give a second day, because it will be quite impossible to complete our Debate satisfactorily before a quarter past eight?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already been asked to give a second day to the Colonial Office Vote in order that matters other than those that are going to be raised to-day may be discussed, and I cannot undertake to do more. I am sorry that hon. Members should be deprived of any part of the time allotted to the Vote to-day.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move,
That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, the Supplementary Estimate for a New Service in Civil Services Estimates, 1921–22, Class 5, Vote 3, may be considered in Committee of Supply this day.
In moving this Resolution, I think I ought to offer a word of explanation about it. To-day was to have been a Supply day, devoted to the discussion of affairs in the Middle East. Owing to the transfer of the money from the Army Vote to the Colonial Office Vote this, technically, is a
new service. That will prevent the day being a Supply day under the ordinary Rules, unless this Resolution be carried. It is not new matter; it is merely a transfer of money from one Vote, in which it was included, to another Vote, where it can be better brought under control and discussion. I believe I have the assent of both the parties opposite to the Motion that I make, but I thought that I ought just to explain it to the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

CROWN FORCES, BELFAST.

Mr. DEVLIN: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "The want of proper control and discipline of the Crown forces in Belfast, whereby peaceful citizens are taken from their homes, and, without charge or trial, are murdered during curfew hours."

Colonel Sir JAMES GREIG: On a point of Order. As the Northern Parliament of Ireland has been instituted, is it not out of Order for any questions as to the preservation of law and order in that part of Ireland to be addressed to Ministers here?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that the Executive here are still responsible for the Crown forces in Ireland. The hon. Member for the Falls Division of Belfast asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the want of proper control and discipline of the Crown forces in Belfast,"—
I do not think that can be said to be definite—
whereby peaceful citizens are taken from their homes, and, without charge or trial, are murdered during curfew hours.
I am afraid that the Motion in the form in which it is drawn does not come within the Rules of the House, Standing Order No. 10.

Mr. DEVLIN: Do I understand that you rule that it is not a definite matter of urgent public importance that the Crown forces can go out at one o'clock in the morning in three different relays, enter the houses of peaceful citizens, drag them out of their homes, and murder
them? Then we are told in the House of Commons there is no redress. I shall claim the right as long as I am here to endeavour to defend people from being assassinated at midnight in their homes. If that be not a matter of urgent public importance, is there a single item of British justice left in these islands? What is urgent and what is not?

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member had waited, I was endeavouring to help him to make the Motion definite. I understand that he wishes to move the Adjournment in relation to an incident occurring on Sunday last. Was it Sunday?

Mr. DEVLIN: The Sabbath morning, especially selected, at one o'clock.

Mr. SPEAKER: That enables it to be brought as a particular instance. It is only a thing of that kind which can be taken under the Rules of the House, Standing Order No. 10. I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to put in the words "on Sunday morning last." The hon. Member for the Falls Division of Belfast asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the want of proper control and discipline of the Crown forces in Belfast on Sunday morning last, whereby peaceful citizens were taken from their homes, and, without charge or trial, were murdered during curfew hours."

The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not fewer than 40 Members having accordingly risen,

The Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a Quarter past Eight this evening.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

WALTER HALLS, Esquire, for County of Lancaster (Heywood and Radcliffe Division).

GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed, [No. 141.]

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 141.]

Bill, not amended (in the Standing. Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next.

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).

Mr. JOHN WILLIAM WILSON: reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. John William Wilson as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Housing (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill); Sir William Pearce as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Overseas Trade (Credits and Insurance) Amendment Bill); and Sir Watson Rutherford as Chairman of Standing Committee D (in respect of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill and of the Bastardy Bill)

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the-Overseas Trade (Credits and Insurance) Amendment Bill): Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Cowan, Mr. Grundy, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, Mr. Lawson, Sir Philip Lloyd-Greame, Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel, Mr. Stewart, Sir Robert Thomas, and Captain Watson.

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Housing (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill): Mr. Armitage, Colonel Burn, Mr. Finney, Mr. Gange, Mr. John Jones, Mr. Lindsay, Mr. Henry McLaren, Brigadier General Palmer, Major Steel, and Mr. Trevelyan Thomson.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Captive Birds Shooting (Prohibition) Bill,

Westgate and Birchington Water Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make provision with respect to the validity of certain decrees granted in India for the dissolution of the marriage of persons domiciled in the United Kingdom." [Indian Divorces (Validity) Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to dissolve the Marriage of George Elystan Crompton Preston, of Longford, in the County of Longford, district inspector in the Royal Irish Constabulary, with Edith Preston his now wife, and to enable him to marry again; and for other purposes."—[Preston's Divorce Bill [Lords.]

Preston's Divorce Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; to be read a Second time

Indian Divorces (Validity) Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 138.]

Orders of the Day — MIDDLE EAST.

Mr. CHURCHILL'S STATEMENT.

SUPPLY.

[14th ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1921–22.

Orders of the Day — CLASS V.

MIDDLE EASTERN SERVICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £27,197,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including a Grant in Aid.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): I must take, as my starting point this afternoon, the obligations and responsibilities into which this country has entered in the Middle East, and which, in accordance with the policy of the Government, I am endeavouring to discharge. During the War our Eastern Army conquered Palestine and Mesopotamia. They overran both these provinces of the Turkish Empire. They roused the Arabs and the local inhabitants against the Turks. We uprooted the Turkish administration, and, as the Army moved forward, set up a military administration in its place. In order to gain the support of as many of the local inhabitants as possible, pledges were given that the Turkish rule should not be re-introduced in these regions. There is no dispute about these pledges. They were given by Lord Hardinge, by Sir Percy Cox, and by General Maude, and they were given during the War by the present Prime Minister. Secondly, in order to gain the support of the Arabs against the Turks, we, in common with our Allies, made during the War another series of promises to the Arabs. We made them, through King Hussein and those
who gathered round him, for the reconstitution of the Arab nation, and, as far as possible, for a restoration of Arab influence and authority in the conquered provinces, or, as we term them, the liberated provinces. There is no doubt about these pledges either. In regard to Palestine, a third promise of a very important character was made, on behalf of the Government, by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council (Mr. Balfour), on 2nd November, 1917, that Great Britain, if successful in the War, would use her best endeavours to establish a Jewish national home in Palestine. Such was the position, and such were our obligations when the War came to an end.
After the fateful period of the War, we entered upon the painful period of the peace negotiations. The principles governing the disposal of the conquered Turkish provinces and of the German Colonies among the victorious Allies were decided by the Supreme Council sitting in Paris during 1919, and their conclusions were embodied in the Treaties of Versailles and Sèvres and in the Covenant of the League of Nations. These Treaties were approved on behalf of Great Britain by the War Cabinet of those days, and their provisions have been accepted or acquiesced in by Parliament. Under decisions arising out of these Treaties we have solemnly accepted before the whole world the position of mandatory Power for Palestine and Mesopotamia. That is a very serious responsibility. It is not only a formal responsibility; it is an actual responsibility. We are at this moment in possession of these countries. We have destroyed the only other form of government which existed there. We have made the promises that I have already recited to the inhabitants, and we must endeavour to do our duty, to behave in a sober and honourable manner, and to discharge obligations which we entered into with our eyes open. We cannot repudiate light-heartedly these undertakings. We cannot turn round and march our armies hastily to the coast and leave the inhabitants, for whose safety and well-being we have made ourselves responsible in the most public and solemn manner, a prey to anarchy and confusion of the worst description. We cannot, after what we have said and done, leave the Jews in Palestine to be mal-
treated by the Arabs who have been inflamed against them, nor can we leave the great and historic city of Baghdad and other cities and towns in Mesopotamia to be pillaged by the wild Bedouins of the desert. Such a proceeding would not be in accordance with the view the British Parliament has always hitherto taken of its duty, nor would it be in accordance with the reputation that our country has frequently made exertions to deserve and maintain.
It is no use consuming time and energy at this stage in debating whether we were wise or unwise in contracting the obligations I have recounted. Moving this way and that way in the agony of the great War, struggling for our lives, striking at our enemies, now here and now there, wherever it was thought best, we eventually emerged victorious in arms and encumbered with the responsibilities which so often attach to the victor. We are bound to make a sincere, honest, patient, resolute effort to redeem our obligations, and, whether that course be popular or unpopular, I am certain it is the only course which any British Government or British House of Commons will in the end find itself able to pursue. I say an honest, patient, resolute endeavour. I agree that the obligation is not an unlimited one; I agree that a point might be reached when we should have to declare that we had failed and that we were not justified in demanding further sacrifices from the British taxpayer; that the conditions of our finance or our military resources were such that we could do no more. That would be a very humiliating and melancholy confession to have to make, and after giving most careful and, I think, quite unprejudiced consideration to the whole subject, I do not think it would be true to say at the present time either that we have failed or that our resources do not enable us to discharge our obligations. On the contrary, I believe that, judging by all the facts before us at the present time, it is our duty to persevere, and I hope that by persevering we may find an honourable and inextravagant and ultimately prosperous issue from our affairs. But if we are to succeed, if we are to avoid the shame of failure; if we are to bring our enterprises to a satisfactory conclusion, the fundamental condition, the only key, lies in the reduction of expenditure in these
two countries to within reasonable and practicable limits. It is to that I have endeavoured to address myself in priority over other considerations, and it is to that therefore I shall first direct the attention of the Committee this afternoon.
Perhaps I may say in parenthesis how it was that I came into this sphere of business. I found it impossible from the War Office to enforce the military reductions which were needed in Mesopotamia, because those reductions depended absolutely on political action, and that political action was exercised by other Departments of the State. I therefore pressed most strongly for placing the whole responsibility for the Middle East under a single Minister with direct responsibility to Parliament, and for the setting up of a separate Vote which will show Parliament exactly the extent to which it is committed in respect of Middle Eastern matters. In this I was in entire agreement with the Prime Minister. In these circumstances the Cabinet decided to create a Middle Eastern Department and to place that Department under the Colonial Office, and to set up a separate Vote. I had certainly no contemplation or wish at any stage that I should become the Minister responsible. On the other hand, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pressed me most strongly on several occasions to undertake this task I felt that I could hardly avoid it in view of the opinions I had been expressing, and their adoption by my colleagues in the Government. Such is the explanation of how I find myself charged with this matter to-day.
As soon as I had completed, in January, the formation of a Middle Eastern Department, I endeavoured to work out a policy of reduction by cable with the military and civil authorities in Mesopotamia. I failed entirely to make any progress as long as the discussions were conducted by cable. I therefore, with the absent of the Cabinet, went to Cairo and convened a conference of British authorities concerned in the affairs of the Middle East. What it had been impossible to arrange by telegraph proved quite easy to settle by conference and discussion. Whether the conclusions we reached will be justified by events, I cannot tell, but at any rate they were conclusions which were reached unanimously by all the very important and varied experts there, and they will achieve, if they succeed, the
essential condition of reduction which I set before myself as my paramount object. But at any rate within the whole of the Arabian Peninsula, and throughout the whole of that great area, we have a single clear policy upon which all the authorities, military and civil, are at the present time agreed.
I will now trace briefly the successive reductions which have taken place since the Armistice in the garrisons of Palestine and Mesopotamia, and the consequent reductions in charges falling on this country. At the Armistice there were in those two countries over 700,000 persons, comprising soldiers, followers and refugees, the whole of whom were on our pay list and on our ration strength. Counting in battalions, the army which we had represented 175 battalions. I take battalions as a convenient method. Of course there are batteries and regiments and ancillary services, but the battalion is convenient simply for measuring the scale. During the financial year 1919–20, in which period demobilisation of this enormous army was going on, and the repatriation of the troops was being actively pursued, the total expenditure on these two countries was between £70,000,000 and £80,000,000. At the beginning of the next year 1920–21, the numbers had been reduced to 250,000, or a scale of 70 battalions, and the expense had fallen to £40,000,000. I hoped, as the House knows, to reduce the garrison in Mesopotamia still lower during last year, but the outbreak of the rebellion in the summer effectively frustrated this intention, and it became necessary to bring back two divisions from India to cope with the situation. This present financial year 1921–22 opened with a total of 200,000 persons on our pay list in Palestine and Mesopotamia, not counting 30,000 refugees, but comprising a military force of 48 battalions as against 175 at the Armistice. The Government had already decided to reduce the force forthwith by returning the two divisions which had been brought over from India, and it would then have stood at practically 33 battalions in Mesopotamia and three or four in Palestine, and the Government had also deter mined to explore the possibility of making further reductions in the year.
Even with these large reductions it was inevitable that the expense in 1921 would be very heavy indeed. First of all, the
condition of the country had to be such as to permit of the departure of the troops. Secondly, these troops had to be collected and filtered down long lines of river communications with limited shipping resources, the railways having been greatly damaged during the rebellion. Thirdly, the British troops had to be transported to other stations, and the expense of sea transport is included in this Vote. The Indian troops had to be transported back to India, and there demobilised after receiving a period of leave on full pay, and that expense has to be borne on this Vote. Even on the basis of those large reductions on which the Cabinet and the War Office had decided before these matters were transferred to the Colonial Office, it was clear that when the Estimates were finally worked out by the War Office the expense would not be less than £32,500,000. In addition there were the expenses of the Air Force, which were over £1,000,000, and certain other unavoidable charges, such as those for refugees who were still on our hands, and for repairing the railways, which were necessary if for no other purpose to the outward movement of the troops. In all, the final total estimated expenditure for the current year in Mesopotamia and Palestine, after all the reductions which have been decided upon had been given effect to, amounted to £35,000,000.
I now come to the Cairo Conference. If any saving was to be effected in this total, it was evident that the rate at which the troops should leave the country must be substantially accelerated, and that being so, a large body of troops must quit Mesopotamia before the hot weather, which is a dangerous period, instead of waiting until afterwards as had been intended. Another large body of troops also had to quit Mesopotamia after the critical period was passed. The following are the principal economies effected by the Cairo Conference. I should like to say I had the assistance of the most able soldiers who are responsible on the spot as well as representatives of the General Staff, and no violence has been done to responsible military opinion. I had the great assistance of General Congreve and General Haldane, commanding in Egypt and Mesopotamia respectively, and General Radcliffe, representing the General Staff, and it was agreed that
subject to the political arrangements which are a counterpart of these reductions, and other methods which I shall mention in the course of my statement, there should be an immediate reduction of the Mesopotamia garrison from a 33 battalion to a 23 battalion scale. This reduction will be completed by the 15th July, and troops have been pouring out of the country ever since the decision was come to. We decided on a further prospective reduction after 1st October to a 12 battalion scale, and on the immediate disposal of stock and surplus military stores in Mesopotamia, with the consequent economies in storage expenses and personnel. We decided upon a reduction in the number of horses from 47,000 on the 1st April down to 17,000 by the 1st August, which I am sorry to say involved a wholesale destruction of great numbers of horses, which it would have been uneconomical to feed or transport elsewhere, and which could not be provided with humane treatment among the population of the country. Lastly, there is a large reduction in the number of followers and in the Indian and native labour employed by the Army. The total traceable definite saving resulting from these measures amounted to £5,500,000, and a further close scrutiny of Army Estimates has enabled us to make another saving of £1,000,000. Against these savings we have, however, to set certain other charges for the Air Force, for Arab levies, and for subsidies—of which I will speak later—and charges for refugees, railways, and miscellaneous civil charges. These represent a total of nearly £2,000,000, making a net total reduction of £4,500,000. While I was still at Cairo endeavouring to effect these economies, I learned that the Cabinet had decided that the War Office should anticipate the resultant saving by a sum of over £4,000,000, and the Army Estimates were presented to Parliament on that basis. Such a mark of confidence in the impending success of my labours was very gratifying to me, but the consequence is that the actual net reduction on the Estimates which I am able to submit to the Committee to-day only amounts to a further £379,000 over and above the £4,000,000 to which I have referred. The total expense on these two countries during the present year is there-
fore newly estimated, not at £35,000,000, but at £27,250,000.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: How much of that relates to Mesopotamia and how much to Palestine?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think I would rather unfold my case as I go along. I shall be dealing with the two provinces separately in a few moments. If the arrangements we are now making are successful, and if the policy which renders these arrangements possible is carried out, and if it is not interrupted by untoward events—I am putting in a good many "ifs," but long and varied experience leads me to safeguard myself as effectively as possible—if, as I say, our anticipations are not overthrown by events, I expect, and propose, that the Estimates for next year, 1922–23, for the normal current expenditure in both Palestine and Mesopotamia together—apart, that is to say, from terminal charges and special charges which may result from the evacuation and demobilisation of the troops—will not exceed £9,000,000 or £10,000,000; and I may remind the House that that amount has only a pre-War value of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000. If this further saving of approximately £18,000,000, as compared with the expenditure of the present year, or of £28,000,000, as compared with that of last year, can really be achieved, it will constitute a very considerable relief to the British taxpayer. It will mean that our expenditure in these two countries will have been reduced to more or less manageable proportions, and will enable us to carry out in a fair and reasonable manner the obligations and pledges into which we have entered.
Let us now see what is the policy and what are the methods by which we hope to achieve this enormous reduction in military strength and in expenditure while at the same time carrying out our undertakings. Hitherto, in the financial argument, I have treated Palestine and Mesopotamia as one, but now the path bifurcates, and I must deal with each country separately. I will take Mesopotamia first. In June of last year the High Commissioner for Mesopotamia was directed by His Majesty's Government to announce the early setting up of a distinctly Arab Government under an Arab ruler in Mesopotamia, or Iraq, as it is, perhaps, more
convenient to call it. That declaration we have already to a great extent carried out. A provisional native Government has been in existence for a good many months. It has been formed by Sir Percy Cox under the headship of the Naqib of Baghdad, whose services, in spite of his great age, in coming forward and assisting us at this juncture, are worthy of the highest praise and recognition. A Government with British advice and assistance, and, of course, under the protection of Imperial troops, is at present administering the country. It is our intention to replace this provisional Government in the course of the summer by a Government based upon an assembly elected by the people of Iraq, to instal an Arab ruler who will be acceptable to the elected assembly, and to create an Arab army for the national defence. I must now speak about the ruler. We have no intention of forcing upon the people of Iraq a ruler who is not of their own choice. At the same time, as the Mandatory Power, as the Power which is put to such heavy expense, we cannot remain indifferent or unconcerned in a matter so vital to us. We should like to have the best candidate chosen, but we must in any case have a suitable candidate chosen. The situation is not free from delicacy or uncertainty, and I must pick my words very carefully.

Mr. G. MURRAY: Would the right hon. Gentleman give the boundaries of Iraq.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It would be very difficult to do so without reference to a map, and I think my hon. Friend might be one of quite a small minority who were able to retain the frontiers in their minds without a map. I should certainly be very sorry to undertake the task of explanation without being provided with a map. I can easily supply a map: I will have one put in the Tea Room. As I have said, the situation is not altogether free from uncertainty, and I must be very careful what I say. I would point out, however, that, after all, it is not a situation which is wholly unfamiliar to Members of Parliament. It seems to me, looking at it as a layman, that it is not altogether unlike what sometimes happens at a by-election, where several candidates present themselves as representatives of different parties and different interests, and seek the nomination of the various associations; and where those associations, while exercising, of course, an absolutely
independent judgment, are nevertheless often anxious, and rightly anxious, to know what are the views of Parliament Street and Whitehall, and, after all, are not wholly insensible to the advice that is tendered to them. I do not say that these conditions apply to the problem we have to face in Mesopotamia, but these Arab matters are very delicate and complicated, and I hope the Committee does not suppose that I shall pose as an expert on these Arab imbroglios and complications. It does, however, seem to me that the situation will not be wholly foreign to those with which many of us have been familiar in our ordinary political life.
I think I am right in leaving these matters entirely in the hands of Sir Percy Cox. He is a great believer in the Arabs; he is devoted to the people of Iraq; he is acquainted with every aspect of Arab politics; he is in close personal relations with most of the candidates; he is accustomed to deal with these Arab notabilities, and I hope that under his guidance the people of Iraq will make a wise and at the same time a free choice: I feel, however, that it is necessary, after consultation with my advisers—and I have tried to obtain the best experts that the British Empire can produce in these matters—I think it necessary to state quite plainly the view which the British Government takes of what would be the best choice of ruler. Broadly speaking, there are two policies which can be adopted towards the Arab race. One is the policy of keeping them divided, of discouraging their national aspirations, of setting up administrations of local notables in each particular province or city, and exerting an influence through the jealousies of one tribe against another. That was largely, in many cases, the Turkish policy before the War, and cynical at is was, it undoubtedly achieved a certain measure of success. The other policy, and the one which, I think, is alone compatible with the sincere fulfilment of the pledges we gave during the War to the Arab race and to the Arab leaders, is an attempt to build up around the ancient capital of Baghdad, in a form friendly to Britain and to her Allies, an Arab State which can revive and embody the old culture and glories of the Arab race, and which, at any rate, will have a full and fair opportunity of doing so if the Arab race shows itself capable of pro-
fiting by it. Of these two policies we have definitely chosen the latter.
If you are to endeavour so to shape affairs in the sense of giving satisfaction to Arab nationality, you will, I believe, find that the very best structure around which to build, in fact, the only structure of this kind which is available, is the house and family and following of the Sherif of Mecca. It was King Hussein, who, in the crisis of the War, declared war upon the Turks and raised the Arab standard. Around that standard gathered his four capable sons—of whom the Emir Feisal and the Emir Abdulla are the two best known in this country—and many of the principal chiefs and notabilities of the Arab world. With them at our side we fought, and with their aid as a valuable auxiliary Lord Allenby hurled the Turks from Palestine. Both the Emir Abdulla and the Emir Feisal have great influence in Iraq among the military and also among the religious classes, both Sunni and Shiah. The adherents of the Emir Feisal have sent him an invitation to go to Mesopotamia and present himself to the people and to the assembly which is soon to gather together, and King Hussein has accorded his son permission to accept the invitation. The Emir Abdulla, the elder brother, has renounced his rights and claims. I have caused the Emir Feisal to be informed, in answer to his inquiry, that no obstacle will be placed in the way of his candidature, that he is at liberty to proceed forthwith to Mesopotamia, and that, if he is chosen, he will receive the countenance and support of Great Britain. In consequence, the Emir Feisal has already left Mecca on the 12th of this month, and is now on his journey to Mesopotamia, where he will arrive in about 10 days. We must see how opinion forms itself and what is the view of the National Assembly when it is elected. I cannot attempt to predict the course of events, but I do not hesitate to say that, if the Emir Feisal should be acceptable to the people generally, and to the Assembly, a solution will have been reached which offers, in the opinion of the highest authorities on whom I am relying, the best prospects for a happy and a prosperous outcome.
There has, however, lately arisen in Iraq and particularly in the Province of Basra, a considerable movement in the
direction of continuing direct British rule. People always seem to want something different from what is actually being done. When we were giving them direct British rule a few years ago they rebelled against it. Now that we offer them the Arab State which was then demanded so ardently, there is a considerable feeling that perhaps after all British rule will be found to be most stable. It is one of the comparatively few compliments that we have been receiving in this part of the world. I think it reflects very much credit upon Sir Percy Cox that in so short a time he has effected such a considerable change in the public sentiment towards us. But I can hold out no hope that we shall be found willing to continue these direct responsibilities. Our object and our policy is to set up an Arab Government, and to make it take the responsibility, with our aid and our guidance and with an effective measure of our support, until they are strong enough to stand alone, and so to foster the development of their independence as to permit the steady and speedy diminution of our burden. I cannot say in regard to Mesopotamia that there are primary, direct, strategic British interests involved. The defence of India can be better conducted from her own strategic frontier. Mesopotamia is not, like Egypt, a place which in a strategic sense is of cardinal importance to our interests, and our policy in Mesopotamia is to reduce our commitments and to extricate ourselves from our burdens while at the same time honourably discharging our obligations and building up a strong and effective Arab Government which will always be the friend of Britain and, I will add, the friend of France.
We are leaning strongly to what I may call the Sherifian solution, both in Mesopotamia, to which the Emir Feisal is proceeding, and in Trans-Jordania, where the Emir Abdulla is now in charge. We are also giving aid and assistance to King Hussein, the Sherif of Mecca, whose State and whose finances have been grievously affected by the interruption of the pilgrimage, in which our Mohammedan countrymen are so deeply interested, and which we desire to see resumed. The repercussion of this Sherifian policy upon the other Arab chiefs must be carefully watched. In the vast deserts of Arabia, which stretch Eastward and North-Eastward from the
neighbourhood of Mecca to the Persian Gulf and to the boundaries of Mesopotamia, there dwell the peoples of Nejd, powerful nomadic tribes, at the head of whom the remarkable chief Bin Saud maintains himself. This Arab chief has long been in a state of warfare, raid, and reprisal with King Hussein and with his neighbours generally. A large number of Bin Saud's followers belong to the Wahabi sect, a form of Mohammedanism which bears, roughly speaking, the same relation to orthodox Islam as the most militant form of Calvinism would have borne to Borne in the fiercest times of the religious wars. The Wahabis profess a life of exceeding austerity, and what they practise themselves they rigorously enforce on others. They hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children. Women have been put to death in Wahabi villages for simply appearing in the streets. It is a penal offence to wear a silk garment. Men have been killed for smoking a cigarette, and as for the crime of alcohol, the most energetic supporter of the temperance cause in this country falls far behind them. Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and bloodthirsty, in their own regions the Wahabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account, and they have been, and still are, very dangerous to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, and to the whole institution of the pilgrimage, in which our Indian fellow-subjects are so deeply concerned.
The Emir Bin Saud has shown himself capable of leading and, within considerable limits, of controlling these formidable sectaries. He has always shown himself well disposed towards Great Britain and has long been in intimate relations with Sir Percy Cox. Under the advice of Sir Percy Cox, and of my counsellors here at home, we have arranged to continue the subsidy which Bin Saud has hitherto received from the British Government of £60,000 a year, together with a lump sum of £20,000. It is only the cost after all of a single battalion of Indian infantry. This subsidy will be paid monthly in arrear, contingent on the maintenance of peace and order externally. It must be understood that the granting of this subsidy gives the Chief the power to establish the authority on which that order and control depend, and that, deprived of
these funds, he would soon lose control of the nomadic and predatory tribes which are brought under what is after all a restraining influence. We shall pay only in so far as good behaviour is assured, and if injury is done by one of these parties to the other a deduction will be made from the subsidy of the aggressor and handed over, in the form of compensation, to the victim. King Hussein has expressed his willingness to enter into negotiations, and I trust that a period of comparative tranquillity may be achieved. I have seen a number of ignorant suggestions that we should have done better to press Bin Saud as a candidate for Iraq The religious views with which he is identified, and which his followers would be bound to enforce, would, of course, have set the whole of Mesopotamia in a blaze. On the other hand, we desire to live on friendly and amicable terms with this potentate and not to be disturbed by him, particularly at a time when we are seeking to withdraw so large a proportion of our garrison from the country.
If we are successful in the plans we are pursuing, by the end of the financial year the Arab ruler and Arab Government will be installed at Baghdad. The Arab army is already partly formed under the administration of Ja'afar Pasha, the present Mesopotamian Secretary of State for War. I do not know whether the Committee have in their minds the romantic career of this man. I have no doubt my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Wrekin Division (Sir C. Townshend) is well acquainted with it. He began the War fighting against us at the Dardanelles, and he achieved a German iron cross. He then came round to the Western Desert where he commanded the army of the Senoussi against us. He fought, I believe, three battles, in two of which he was victorious, but the third went amiss from his point of view, and he was wounded and pursued by the Dorsetshire Yeomanry and finally caught in the open field, taken to Cairo as prisoner of war and confined in the citadel. He endeavoured to escape, but, being a somewhat ample personage, the rope by which he was descending from the wall of the citadel broke and precipitated him into a ditch, where his leg was broken. While he was in hospital recovering from these injuries he read in the papers that King Hussein, the Sherif of Mecca, had declared war upon the Turks.
and he immediately saw that he was on the other side to what he had hitherto thought. He therefore made representations to the Arab leaders at Mecca, and after some hesitation he was given a command in their army. He very speedily rose to a position of high confidence and distinguished himself greatly in the fighting which took place in the next two years. He was finally given the companionship of St. Michael and St. George by Lord Allenby in a hollow square of British troops composed almost entirely of the same Dorsetshire Yeomanry which had ridden him down. Such is the personality of the Mesopotamian Minister of War, and he is of course a devoted adherent of the Sherif of Mecca.
The cost of the Arab army will be defrayed from Mesopotamian revenues, but there are, in addition to that, Arab levies which will gradually be absorbed in the Arab army and will pass out of our expense, Kurdish levies and a certain number of Assyrian levies which I have been endeavouring to form out of the refugees who have so long enjoyed our reluctant hospitality. This force of levies is engaged in taking over outlying stations from the British troops, and so enabling the garrison and the expense to be reduced. Behind the Arab army and behind these levies there will stand at the end of the year about 12 battalions of British and Indian infantry. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir C. Townshend) said last Session that if he had the matter in his own hands he would guarantee to defend Mesopotamia with a division.

Sir C. TOWNSHEND: Basra.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. CHURCHILL: We are attempting something far more ambitious, and therefore the Committee will not accuse us on the score of undue extravagance. These 12 battalions with their ancillary unite will, it is considered, be sufficient to hold Baghdad and the river communications which connect it with the sea. Last of all in our arrangements for maintaining public security, but by no means least of all, comes the powerful Air Force which is now stationed in the country, and which is being somewhat increased. There are at present six squadrons of aeroplanes in Mesopotamia, and next year there will be two more.
The extent to which aerial control can be used in substitution for military force is still disputable, but with every month that has passed our confidence in its great utility has been increased. It must not be supposed that aeroplanes have no means of acting except by using lethal force. That, of course, is in reserve. But we hope that, by their agency, we shall be able to keep in amicable touch with the tribes and local centres, and to ward off in good time movements of unrest, to sustain and, if necessary, relieve detached posts, to keep political officers in close relation with their districts, and to maintain a reasonable degree of order in the country. There is also a squadron of the Air Force in Palestine, and three squadrons in Egypt. Arrangements are being made which will make it possible for aeroplanes to fly regularly to and fro across the desert between Baghdad and Cairo. At the present time, if you wish to move a squadron from Egypt to Mesopotamia, or vice versa, the aeroplanes have to be taken to pieces at the port, packed in crates, and taken on a long sea voyage; then unpacked, put together and trued-up for flying—a process which takes two or three months at the least. But once this route across the desert has been marked out, and it is possible for it to be flown in the regular course of affairs, the whole of the Air Force in Mesopotamia can be speedily transported to Palestine or Egypt, or vice versa, and be sent to reinforce the Air Force in Mesopotamia.
That may, in the end, be used as a means of securing a reduction of the aggregate number of squadrons we shall have to employ. It is going on now, but I am, of course, counting on the friendly sentiment in the desert, and we have every reason to believe we shall get it. That is the whole policy. It is to develop a friendly policy with the Arabs, to keep in close touch and sympathy and sentiment with them. I should mention that as all this Air Force has to be on the ground for the purpose of maintaining peace and order, arrangements can be made to fly a certain number of commercial aeroplanes, which can carry mails, and possibly passengers, and, incidentally, will, if we have a peaceful solution, at which we are aiming, afford a most valuable link in the chain of
Imperial communications, which may ultimately result in very great advantage in shortening communication with India and with Australia and New Zealand.
I do not want to detain the Committee longer than is necessary, but I fear I must be allowed to present my picture as a whole. I must mention, before I leave Mesopotamia, the question of Kurdistan. Before Sir Percy Cox left Baghdad, he had intimated to the Kurds that, in anticipation of the plebiscite, which was provided for them in the Treaty of Sèvres, he would continue to administer Kurdistan direct. The Kurd does not appreciate the prospect of being ruled by an Arab Government. He is more ready, more contented to rule himself under the guidance and advice of the British administration. But they have expressed considerable apprehension at the idea of an Arab Government, because they have not been informed of the extent to which we shall support that Government and sustain it, and they do not know whether the Arab Government will be a success or not. We have therefore instituted inquiries throughout the Kurdish areas, and the result has been to confirm the view that the people of Southern Kurdistan would only accept union with Iraq if they were dealt with by the High Commissioner direct. Therefore Sir Percy Cox will perform a dual function in regard to Iraq and Kurdistan, somewhat analogous to the functions of the Governor-General of South Africa with regard to the Union and Rhodesia and the native territories. I trust that, under his influence, Southern Kurdistan and Iraq will be drawn closer together, but, in the meantime, I want to make it quite clear that we are developing, as it were, a principle of home rule for Southern Kurdistan within the general area of Mesopotamia at the same time that we are developing the general self-government of Mesopotamia.

Mr. ASQUITH: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by Southern Kurdistan? What about Mosul?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Mosul is in Iraq. I shall be very glad to lay a map.

Lord R. CECIL: Then is everything to the north of Iraq included in Southern Kurdistan?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Of course, they are going to be administered as one commer-
cial area, but the chiefs in Southern Kurdistan will look direct to the High Commissioner and will not be themselves under this new Arab Government until a later stage, when we hope matters will be so far stabilised that there will be a general community of interests. Such are the arrangements, political, financial and military, by which we hope to erect and to sustain during its early years an Arab Government in Mesopotamia. In proportion as that Government grows strong and efficient, we shall hope to reduce the forces we have in that country, even below the limit I have mentioned, till ultimately the main, if not the whole, responsibility for order will be assumed by the Arab ruler and Government, with the possible assistance of the Kurdish levies. At Kurdistan the Arab levies will be merged in the Arab Army, but there will be Kurdistan levies in addition. You must have Kurds levied in Kurdistan, and they will furnish a most valuable bulwark against infiltrations from Kemalist or Bolshevist sources. It would be disastrous if you tried to police the Kurdish districts with Arab levies. As they say, I believe, in the language of the Turks, "Horses for horses." We should not think of mixing up the different classes or putting them in their wrong places; it would be most unfortunate. We are prepared, when the Arab Government has been set up, and a ruler chosen, to enter into negotiations with that ruler, to enable us to readjust our relations with Mesopotamia upon a treaty basis, that is, recognising in a much more direct form her independence, and thus still further to disengage ourselves from the problems, burdens, and responsibilities of these embarrassing regions. As I have said, the normal cost of the military and aviation arrangements for Mesopotamia in the coming year, on the basis I have described, will not exceed £7,000,000 or £8,000,000, but I must not be understood as presenting the exact Estimate a year and a half before the time.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: How much of that is for the Air Force?

Mr. CHURCHILL: About £1,250,000 for the Air Force, and the rest for levies and certain subsidies. The Committee will ask me, Do you guarantee that these arrangements which you are making will actually work, and will they permit the
great reductions in the garrisons to be made without leading to a renewal of disorder and of war? I can give no guarantee. All I can say is that I believe they are the best arrangements that can be contrived, and that they have gathered behind them a very general measure of support among the experts, military, civil and aerial, who have been concerned in making them. The High Commissioner was prepared on this basis to carry on, and the military authorities were in accord. If they succeed they will relieve the Exchequer of an immense burden, and ultimately lead up to a condition where the country will be self-supporting. The carrying out of this policy will require great skill and prudence, as well as resolution, from Sir Percy Cox, and from the military and civil authorities concerned. If it is successful, I am sure the Committee will feel that very great credit will be deserved by all of these devoted men who have been maintaining their position and our interests in that country all these weary months, under circumstances of great discouragement and uncertainty, and who are now so loyally co-operating in this experiment of the development of a national Government there.
I turn to Palestine. Here, at the present time, the problem is more acute than in Mesopotamia. On the other hand, it is a much smaller problem in a military sense. Mesopotamia is a vast, inaccessible country. Palestine is a country readily accessible from all points from the sea, a country which a motor car can traverse from end to end in the course of a day or less than a day. Although, according to my information, there is more danger of trouble in Palestine in this present year than in Mesopotamia—I am only giving you my information—the trouble could be much more easily dealt with if it broke out. The cause of unrest in Palestine, and the only cause, arises from the Zionist movement, and from our promises and pledges in regard to it. But for these promises, and this movement, there is no doubt that the garrison maintained at the British expense in Palestine could be sensibly reduced. At the end of last year, whilst I was still at the War Office, we arranged to make a very large reduction in the Palestine garrison. Our forces were reduced from a ration
strength of 16,000 to one of 7,000, giving a combatant strength of 5,000. That is the number there at the present time. I cannot hold out any hope of diminishing this force in the immediate future. On the contrary, it is possible it may require some slight reinforcement. The total cost to which we were put on this account in Palestine last year was £6,500,000, and this present year it will be £4,500,000. But of that £4,500,000, £2,000,000 represents the repatriation and demobilisation charges for the very large body of Indian troops which have now evacuated the country.
Therefore, you may say that the expense in Palestine of the military garrison—be cause the civil establishment maintains itself; the country supports itself—but the expense of the British military garrison will be £2,500,000 next year. It is not quite fair to say that that expense could all be reduced if, for instance, we had not got Palestine, because the bulk of the troops in Palestine are regular British units, and if they were not stationed in Palestine, it is probable that they would be stationed elsewhere, unless this House were to embark on a further policy of disbanding the pre-War units of the British Army. Still, there it is, and I am not at all minimising the difficulties of the problem. Let us see how we stand towards the Jews and the Arabs of Palestine. I have mentioned to the Committee the declaration of the Lord President of the Council, endorsed as it was by the Supreme Council of the Allies at San Remo. The substance of it found its repetition in the draft mandate which is shortly coming before the League of Nations.

Sir F. BANBURY: Is the League of Nations going to be represented in Palestine and Mesopotamia?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No. We have quite enough complications. The mandates are held under the Covenant of the League of Nations. The difficulty about this promise of a national home for the Jew in Palestine is that it conflicts with our regular policy of consulting the wishes of the people in the mandated territories and of giving them representative institutions as soon as they are fit for them, which institution, in this case they would use to veto any further Jewish immigration. There are many difficulties, but, numerous as they are, vexatious as they are, I
believe that with patience, coolness, and a little good fortune we may find a way out of them. The British Empire has been built up by optimism and by positive assertions rather than negations. There are in Palestine about 500,000 Moslems, 65,000 Christians, and about 63,000 Jews. There have been brought into Palestine under the Zionist scheme of immigration about 7,000 Jews. This immigration and the propaganda by which it has been accompanied has greatly alarmed and excited the Arab population. It is not so much the number of the immigrants which has created the alarm, but the continuous and ardent declarations of the Zionist organisations throughout the world—which they have a perfect right to make—of their hope and aim of making Palestine a predominantly Jewish country, peopled by Jews from all over the world, and also the fear that these Jews will come principally from Central Europe, and particularly from Russia.
The Arabs believe that in the next few years they are going to be swamped by scores of thousands of immigrants from Central Europe, who will push them off the land, eat up the scanty substance of the country and eventually gain absolute control of its institutions and destinies. As a matter of fact these fears are illusory. The Zionists in order to obtain the enthusiasm and the support which they require are bound to state their case with the fullest ardour, conviction and hope, and it is these declarations which alarm the Arabs, and not the actual dimensions of the immigration which has taken place or can take place in practice. However, we have there Sir Herbert Samuel, who is so well known to many Members of this House; a skilful, practised, experienced liberal politician—qualities of which it is very necessary to have an ample supply in the government of so widespread and various an empire as ours. He is also a most ardent Zionist. I am following with very great confidence his action and giving him every possible measure of confidence and support in these difficult times. He has lately made a further declaration to the peoples of Palestine, explaining to them his interpretation of the phrase "national home," as used in the pledge given by the British Government in 1917. This is what he said:
These words (national home) mean that the Jews, who are a people scattered throughout the world, but whose hearts are
always turning to Palestine, should he enabled to found here their home, and that some amongst them, within the limits fixed by numbers and the interests of the present population, should come to Palestine in order to help by their resources and efforts to develop the country to the advantage of all its inhabitants.
There really is nothing for the Arabs to be frightened about. All the Jewish immigration is being very carefully watched and controlled both from the point of view of numbers and character. No Jew will be brought in beyond the number who can be provided for by the expanding wealth and development of the resources of the country. There is no doubt whatever that at the present time the country is greatly under-populated. Anyone who has seen the work of the Jewish colonies which have been established during the last 20 or 30 years in Palestine will be struck by the enormous productive results which they have achieved. I had the opportunity of visiting the colony of Richon le Zion about 12 miles from Jaffa, and there, from the most inhospitable soil, surrounded on every side by barrenness and the most miserable form of cultivation, I was driven into a fertile and thriving country estate, where the scanty soil gave place to good crops and good cultivation, and then to vineyards and finally to the most beautiful, luxurious orange groves, all created in 20 or 30 years by the exertions of the Jewish community who live there. Then as we went on we were surrounded by 50 or 60 young Jews, galloping on their horses, and with farmers from the estate who took part in the work. Finally, when we reached the centre, there were drawn up 300 or 400 of the most admirable children, of all sizes and sexes, and about an equal number of white-clothed damsels. We were invited to sample the excellent wines which the establishment produced, and to inspect the many beauties of the groves.
I defy anybody, after seeing work of this kind, achieved by so much labour, effort and skill, to say that the British Government, having taken up the position it has, could cast it all aside and leave it to be rudely and brutally overturned by the incursion of a fanatical attack by the Arab population from outside. It would be disgraceful if we allowed anything of the kind to take place. I am talking to the Committee of what I saw with my own eyes. All round the Jewish colony, the Arab houses were
tiled instead of being built of mud, so that the culture from this centre has spread out into the surrounding district. I have no doubt that with the proper development of the resources of Palestine, and that if Jewish capital is available, as it may be, for development in Palestine, for the creation of great irrigation works on the Jordan, and for the erection of electrical power stations in the Jordan valley, which can so readily be erected there, there will be, year after year, new means of good livelihood for a moderate number of the Jewish community, and the fact that they will be gaining their livelihood by these new means will inure to the general wealth of the whole community, Arabs and Christians as well as of Jews. I see no reason why with care and progress there, there should not be a steady flow of Jewish immigrants into the country, and why this flow should not be accompanied at every stage by a general increase in the wealth of the whole of the existing population, and without injury to any of them. That, at any rate, is the task upon which we have embarked, and which I think we are bound to pursue. We cannot possibly agree to allow the Jewish colonies to be wrecked, or all future immigration to be stopped, without definitely accepting the position that the word of Britain no longer counts throughout the East and the Middle East. If representative institutions are conceded, as we hope they will be, to the Arabs in Palestine, some definite arrangements will have to made in the instrument on which those institutions stand, which will safeguard within reasonable limits the immigration of Jews into the country, as they make their own way and create their own means of subsistence. Our task, using a phrase of the late Lord Salisbury, will be to persuade one side to concede and the other to forbear, by keeping a reasonable margin of force available in order to ensure the acceptance of the position by both parties.
The riot which took place at Jaffa and in the neighbourhood two weeks ago was serious in its character. About 400 persons were killed or injured. While the situation still fills us with a certain amount of anxiety, I do not think it is an unmanageable situation or likely to become unmanageable, but I believe it is one that
we shall be able to shape according to our wishes and undertakings within the limits of the expense I have mentioned. Lastly, I must deal with the question of Trans-Jordania. This is one of the most valuable parts of Palestine, and comprises the ancient regions of Moab, Edom and Gilead. We have no troops of any kind in this district, and a state of continuous disorder has prevailed there for the last two years. The normal trade between Eastern and Western Palestine across the Dead Sea and the Jordan has been interrupted, and raiding parties of Arabs from Trans-Jordania have repeatedly crossed the Jordan to kill and steal on the western side of the river. It was necessary to bring Trans-Jordania under some form of settled government. This was necessary not only from our point of view but from that of the French, whose Syrian northern mandatory sphere marches with the northern boundaries of Trans-Jordania. All the discontented elements who were driven out of Damascus by the French in the recent trouble, under circumstances with which the House is well acquainted, had gathered in Trans-Jordania, and had begun to raid northwards into French territory, blowing up bridges, etc., and taking other aggressive action. The French, naturally, objected to this state of things.
It was clear that we ought to keep order ourselves, otherwise it was difficult to deny them the right to enter and to carry out operations in our territory. On the other hand we were very reluctant to face the expense of maintaining two or three battalions in Trans-Jordania and, worse than expense, the risk of getting them isolated and cut off by risings of the tribes. In these circumstances, we had recourse to the good offices of the Emir Abdulla, the elder brother of Emir Feisal, as part of our general policy of acting in accordance with Sherifian influence. I had a long conference with the Emir Abdulla at Jerusalem. He has undertaken to maintain order in Trans-Jordania and to prevent any hostile action against the French. That was the indispensable stipulation which I made. We are assisting him to raise local levies for the purpose of maintaining internal order, and the aeroplane squadron at Ludd, within half an hour's distance, and a few armoured cars are available for his support. So far, these arrangements have been successful. The Emir Abdulla
who is a very agreeable, intelligent, and civilised Arab prince, has maintained an absolutely correct attitude, both towards us and towards the French, and should he find it necessary to lay down the charge which we have persuaded him to assume, I trust it will be possible to find another Arab ruler who will, no doubt, command his goodwill and influence over the tribes.
The general policy which we are pursuing of work with the Sherifian family is in no way opposed to the interests of France. On the contrary it is the surest method open to us of securing France from disturbance in Syria by Arab influences with which she has unhappily disagreed. There is, unfortunately, a certain undercurrent of recrimination among French and British officials in the Middle East. This does not extend to those in responsible positions on either side, and will, I am sure, be firmly suppressed on both sides by superior authority wherever it manifests itself. It would be deeply injurious to both of us if France and Great Britain should be unable to act together in the Middle East. It would be absolutely fatal to our joint interests if the impression were to continue, as it has done during the last two years, that one country was indifferent to Arab aspirations and the other was especially opposed to the Turks. That would be disastrous. In such a way we should unite all the forces in these lands in hostility against us at the very time when we wish to reduce our military forces and the heavy expense to which both countries are put thereby. If we wish to maintain our position and to discharge our responsibilities in the Middle East, England and France together must pursue a policy of appeasement and friendship towards both Turks and Arabs.
The policy which I have been endeavouring to explain to the Committee, and in listening to which they have shown me such special kindness and indulgence, is animated throughout by a sincere desire to establish and consolidate a community of interest between the Arabs on one hand and Great Britain and her Allies on the other. But all these efforts will be frustrated and brought to naught unless we can combine with them a peaceful and lasting settlement with Turkey. It is not to be expected that such a settlement can be reached by the exhibition of absolute powerlessness on the part of Great
Britain and France. We must have the means of defending our vital interests, and we must show that we possess those means, and that in the last resort we are not incapable of using them. Otherwise there is absolutely no limit to the extent of humiliation and maltreatment which will be inflicted upon these great victorious Allies, who so lately struck down the whole Turkish Empire, by antagonists who, if elusive, are also very feeble. But if we show ourselves powerless or incapable of defending ourselves we shall not get that peaceful settlement which is the goal of our aims.
The paramount object which we are pursuing, and have been pursuing for months past, has been to secure a real and lasting peace with Turkey. It is only upon the basis of such a peace that the prospect which I have held out, of a substantial abatement in the heavy charges which will fall upon both countries on account of their Middle Eastern commitments, can be realised. I am bound to bring this matter before the Committee as it is fundamental to the whole argument which I have addressed to them, and to the policy which we are endeavouring to achieve. Such is the counsel which I respectfully offer to the Committee. I cannot say with certainty that the unknown future which lies before us will enable this policy of reduction and appeasement to be carried cut with complete success, but I do believe that the measures which we are taking are well calculated to that end. I have great confidence in the experts and high authorities who have combined in thinking that they are so calculated, and I advise the Committee to give their assent to them and to give us their support in the difficult and delicate process of reduction and conciliation which lies before us, and on which we are already definitely embarking.

Earl WINTERTON: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken gives an impression of power and grandeur which is possessed by few persons and institutions with the possible exception of the Pyramids or Lord Northcliffe. Very few Members of this House, or for that matter of the Government either, in these days can hold the attention of a Committee of this House with a closely reasoned and well-knit speech in the manner in which my right hon. Friend has done. May I say to my right hon. Friend,
with all respect, that I think that it is a personal triumph of no small nature, and this is a proposition with which even those who disagree with some of the things which he has said will be inclined to agree with that. I recognise that a great many hon. Gentlemen wish to take part in this Debate from different angles, and that, owing to circumstances over which the Committee has no control, the time available is shorter than we expected. Therefore I will make my remarks as brief as possible. My only excuse for troubling the Committee is that I have been from the first identified in a very strong degree with the policy which my right hon. Friend has put forward, that I am on terms of personal friendship with the members of the Hussein family to which he has referred in such laudatory terms, and that I have visited a very large number of the places which he has mentioned in his speech.
I would first ask the Committee to consider what is common ground between all of us on both sides, from whatever angle we view this question. I think that every one of us outside Government circles among the Allies and ourselves will agree that since the Armistice there has been almost inconceivable chaos, confusion and conflicting aims among the Allies in their Eastern policy generally. In Mesopotamia we have got a formidable monument of folly. I do not think there is any use in harping upon it. There is no use in indulging in any recriminations with regard to the action of any of those countries with which we have been associated for what has taken place in the past. Nobody wants to act as a sort of refilling point to the vitriolic continental journalism which has taken such a prominent interest in our Eastern affairs. I think that that is common policy between us. Where there is very great difference of opinion in this country—and it is well to recognise the fact at the outset—is in regard to the policy which is now to be pursued. I would like to say a word, first of all, about the policy which has been described as "get out to Basra," the evacuation of Mesopotamia, except in so far as Basra is concerned.
The right hon. Gentleman in his speech explained the circumstances in which we entered Mesopotamia, and I think that they are circumstances which should be recognised, and have not been sufficiently
recognised by public opinion and the Press in this country generally. After a series of incredible blunders made in Mesopotamia, partly military, partly by politicians at home, and partly in India, we succeeded, after great sacrifice of life and treasure, not only in driving the Turks from Mesopotamia, but in defeating them on other frontiers in Palestine and elsewhere. Without going into the vexed and delicate question how far we can consider that the whole of the Allied front in the War was one front, though a French friend once pointed out that the Turks were as much defeated beneath the walls of Verdun as in Mesopotamia, it is we alone who took any great part at all in defeating the Turks except in the early days of Gallipoli, and we found ourselves as a result in military possession of Mesopotamia when the Armistice came. I would ask if anyone in his senses in those circumstances can suggest that either then immediately after the Armistice, or for that matter to-day, we should turn out of that country bag and baggage, leaving it to the anarchy, murder, chaos, and rapine which would undoubtedly follow? I do not think that anyone would suggest that.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Even if it is—

Earl WINTERTON: My hon. and gallant Friend has far too great a habit of interrupting those with whom he disagrees. Perhaps when he has heard my argument I shall be glad to give way.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: You asked a question.

Earl WINTERTON: My hon. and gallant Friend is too fond of asking questions.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: You asked a question.

Earl WINTERTON: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not sufficiently interested in his speeches to ask him any questions. I maintain that that is a policy which no country in its senses could possibly have followed, either after the Armistice or can possibly follow today. As to the "get out to Basra" policy, I view with considerable alarm the kinds of arguments which are used in certain quarters, which hitherto were regarded as Imperialist, about our position in Mesopotamia. Exactly the same arguments
were used by a section of the Press and a large number of people in this country in the early days of the nineteenth century against our whole Colonial policy. It is the argument which we see in the Press to-day—"How can this country afford to pay for a single soldier in Mesopotamia when people are starving through want of work at home?" It is exactly the argument which was used about Canada, Australia, and the rest of the Empire in the hungry 'thirties and 'forties.
Two Noble Lords, two brothers, in another place, apparently are giving support to a policy which fills me with alarm for the whole British Empire. It is put on the naked issue of what I may call pure commercial material interests. They may just as well ask "What advantage it is to us to have a fleet in the Pacific?" We have to keep ships in the Pacific to assist in protecting Australia and exactly the same arguments that apply to Mesopotamia might equally be applied to the position of Australia. "Why should money be spent on the Far Eastern fleet when people are starving at home?" They are most dangerous arguments. I could understand them from some sections of the Labour party. They have always been the arguments of the Manchester School. I do not believe I am alone in resenting the way in which what I may term the stinking corpse of the Manchester School is being resurrected by people who, one might think, would be ashamed to touch such an object. But even if the answer is that we ought to get out of Mesopotamia, if any hon. Member says "I will go the full length of the Manchester School, for I agree with the sermons preached 30 and 40 years ago, when the question was asked: what use are the Colonies to us?"—sermons that the late Mr. Disraeli did so much to fight in this House and sermons which but for his influence might have been in force to-day with the result that the policy might have been put in effect; to-day—if any hon. Member holds those views he is entitled to put them forward. But there is another answer besides that I have given. It is that we have undertaken obligations there. It would be impossible for us having accepted the idea of the League of Nations and the Mandate for Mesopotamia to leave that country in the condition in which it would be if we withdrew.
There is the other sort of argument used in this House by those who are bitterly opposed to the whole idea of the League of Nations, by those who lose no opportunity of sneering and jeering at the League. They are entitled to use the argument, but it would be more honest and honourable of them if they said openly that they would do all they could to smash the League. I do not know whether the hon. Baronet who represents East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) has formed any association to defeat the League, but I suggest it would be more honest to do so than to adopt the attitude which opponents of the League adopt now of losing no opportunity of sneering and jeering at the ideal. They should come out openly and say that they will do all they can to defeat the League and to fashion public opinion to that end; they should say frankly that they will use all the intellectual advantages with which Providence has supplied them in order to rouse the people of the country in support of their views. I suggest that as a policy to the hon. Baronet. There are those who object to our being in Mesopotamia on the ground of the Mandate, but unless they are prepared to attack the whole idea of the League of Nations and to refuse to carry out the obligations under the Covenant, they are in a dilemma, and meanwhile we are bound to undertake the task which is imposed upon us.
I come to what I believe to be a common-sense view, and one which in the main has been enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman to-day. It is that we cannot get out of Mesopotamia bag and baggage, but equally that we cannot afford the money we have hitherto spent, and that that expenditure must cease. It only remains for those who look at this question from different angles, such as the hon. and gallant Member for Wrekin (Sir C. Townshend), and others on this side, to devise some means for carrying out the policy of spending less money. There is the common ground between us that it is impossible for us to get out bag and baggage. How far is it possible to carry out the policy of the Secretary of State—the policy of responsibility for good Government with a minimum charge on the Imperial Exchequer? My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) and myself, at a time when hardly anyone had heard of the Arab movement in this House, advocated
in season and out of season, until we ran the risk of becoming bores on the subject, the idea that the Government should adopt the solution of the problem which, in effect, they have now adopted. From that point of view it is a triumph for the views we put forward. We have always said that you must give the Arabs self-government, give it to them on as wide a basis as possible, and make the territorial area as wide as possible; and, while we are not prepared to go so far as to say that there is no one else to whom you could give the headship of that self-government, we do believe that the Hussein family is the family which is most likely to be able to find a cadet who can carry out that policy.
Everything my right hon. Friend has said about King Hussein and his family has been justified by the part they played in the War. I do not wish to go into that matter at any length. It is public knowledge that they have been subjected, both King Hussein and his sons, the Emir Abdulla and the Emir Feisal, to a great deal of criticism in this country and a great deal of unfair criticism in a foreign country. No one who served, as I did, in the most close personal touch with the Emir Feisal and the Hussein family, and who saw the tremendous military obligations which they undertook and the tremendous personal risk which they ran in order to carry out those obligations, and understood their complete belief in Arab self-government, and knew the friendship of the Arab people with this country—no one who knew that would think that the right hon. Gentleman has praised the Arabs extravagantly to-day. I would like to read extracts from a letter from the Emir Feisal to me, because he deals with what should be the object of British and Arabs alike in the Middle East. The Emir Feisal says:
I earnestly believe that you and the political friends who share your view are working for a thoroughly sound principle—a good understanding between this country and Empire and the Arabs. By helping the latter to rebuild their national life and regain their ancient civilisation, while scrupulously respecting their independence as a nation, Great Britain will have a great moral achievement to its credit, which I believe history will rank as the highest of this generation. Moreover, I am content that this policy and this policy alone will secure to Great Britain those economic and political interests on which she rightly lays
stress. It has the additional advantage of being the most economical to this country.
I believe that those statesmanlike words represent the point of view held by the Emir's father, King Hussein, and the whole of his family, and I associate myself with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to the fitness of the two members of that family for holding high constitutional office in Arab self-government.
I can see that a great deal will be made of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has to-day made what is in effect an extended promise of a chance to the Arabs of carving out their own destiny in their own way. I can quite imagine that in certain other quarters, particularly in Egypt, an attempt will be made to draw a comparison between what we are prepared to do in Mesopotamia and Palestine and what we have not yet done in Egypt. I hope that no member of the Committee will be deluded into agreeing with the people who make such a comparison. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, there can be no possible comparison between our position in Mesopotamia and Palestine and our position in Egypt. We have obligations in Egypt of which we cannot divest ourselves; we have undertaken obligations to a large foreign community such as does not exist in Mesopotamia. In my right hon. Friend's remarks on Palestine there was one matter to which I must refer, and that is the question of emigration. I know Richon le Zion almost better than my right hon. Friend knows it. I took part in a fight in its environs during the War, and I am glad to say that few of its pleasant buildings were damaged by the artillery fire of the combatants. It is a monument to the hard work and the good sense shown by the Jewish immigrants, but I think the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps unintentionally, did rather an injustice to the Arab cultivators in the community. It is true that their methods of cultivation are inferior to those of the Jews.
I recognise that here I am getting on delicate ground. After all, the Arab cultivators of Palestine, however old-fashioned and antiquated their methods may be, were the people who were originally on the ground. There was a period of, I believe, about 1,600 years, during which there were no Jewish cultivators at all and the Arab culti-
vators were in possession. There is a feeling among the Arabs that by stressing the superior methods of cultivation adopted by the Jews compared with the primitive methods of the Arabs, a suggestion is made that in course of time the Arabs will have to make way for the Jews. Nothing could be more vital to the good government of Palestine in the future than the dispelling of that idea. No sort of pressure should be put on the Arab cultivators to give up their land, even though they prefer to cultivate it in old-fashioned ways. If you do not dispel the idea to which I have referred you will have an agrarian movement of a very serious kind in Palestine. Already we have got there what is rather amazing, a Moslem-Christian league, the object of which is largely to support the interests of the original cultivators. The matter will require very careful handling. I have always had considerable doubts as to whether it is possible to bring many more emigrants into Palestine and to settle them on the land. I have discussed the matter with a former Member of this House who, unfortunately, is now gone from us, the late Sir Mark Sykes, and he had the idea that it would be possible to settle a large number of people in the Jordan Valley. But I have grave doubts about it. I do not think Palestine will accommodate many more emigrants on the land. But there are forms of manufacture; there is a great deal to be done in the first few years in improving communications; there is the possibility of minerals in the country. I think there is room for development.
6.0 P.M.
Any Government in Palestine would be placed in a dilemma between the claims of the Arab cultivator and the claims of more progressive, economic, and intensive cultivation. Unquestionably, they can carry out the latter, but only at the cost of dispossessing the Arab cultivator. Directly you begin to buy land for the purpose of settling Jewish cultivators you will find yourself up against the hereditary antipathy which exists all over the world to the Jewish race. At the same time, I do not take a gloomy view of the future of Palestine. I resent as strongly as the most enthusiastic supporter of the Zionist movement the attacks which have been made upon it. We have in Sir Herbert Samuel a man with wide experience of government and
of most impartial and judicial mind, and I believe he has already made himself popular with all sections in Palestine. We, in this House and in this country, owe him this obligation, that we should refrain from making more difficult, than it would otherwise be, the position which he fills in Palestine. It is a very small country, and questions asked in this House are eagerly followed by local parties, and it is not desirable that attention should be drawn to differences between Jews and Arabs. If an effort is made in this House to treat it as the question of Ireland is treated, and the differences between Ulstermen and the rest of Ireland, it will have a most deplorable effect in Palestine. Palestine, in some respects, I am glad to say not in all, is not unlike Ireland, and nothing is easier than to stir up trouble by controversies outside. I think that Sir Herbert Samuel, to use a vulgar phrase, should be given a chance to prove his hand.
The statement which has been given regarding military expenditure in Palestine is most satisfactory. As in the case of Mesopotamia so in the case of Palestine I cannot see how any sane person can suggest that we should now go out of the country bag and baggage and leave it in a worse condition than it was before. I think we are entitled to receive at the hands of the so-called Anti-Waste party some explanation of their attitude on this matter. The Committee is entitled to hear from the leaders of that party what is their alternative policy in Palestine and Mesopotamia, and whether it is really one of getting out bag and baggage, or one of spending a modified sum of money, and, if so, in what respect it is a better policy than that which has fallen from my right hon. Friend. I believe my right hon. Friend has chosen far the wiser course. I think the Conference in which he took part at Cairo will be of the greatest possible present and future benefit to the whole British Empire.
The country is fortunate in having the right hon. Gentleman at the head of this great Department at a time when it is called upon to fulfil responsibilities greater than it has ever been called upon to fulfil before. It has had to deal with, and stop, the faults committed in the past by other Members of His Majesty's Government. Those were not the faults of the right hon. Gentleman, but of other
Members of the Government, some of whom, unfortunately, do not sit in this House any longer. I wish they did sit here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name, name!"] Well, as to giving the name I am not quite sure of the Standing Orders on the subject. I shall only express the wish that a certain Noble Lord had taken a step downwards in the Peerage rather than one upwards so that some of us might have a chance of putting questions to him in this House. As I have said, it is not the fault of the right hon. Gentleman if mistakes have been made in the past. I believe he will go a long way towards retrieving those mistakes. I am aware that this is a form of flattery which has never been very popular with him, but I am only speaking in the interests of truth which are more important than any tribute which could be paid to him. I believe that with good luck he will succeed. He was very frank when he admitted that in this matter we are dependent to some extent upon luck and the course of events. No one can say that any policy in the countries with which he has to deal, can be immediately successful. If I may use an aerial term there are all kinds of pockets of wind to be encountered, some of which may be very favourable and other of which may be quite the reverse. Given the average luck and carrying out his task, as I believe he will, with the proper spirit and intention, I think he will succeed in eliminating the present really dangerous situation in the Middle East and in casting fresh lustre on the traditions of British Imperial policy.

Sir CHARLES TOWNSHEND: I do not think anyone in this House understands more than myself the difference between criticism and execution—between theory and practice. On the few occasions I have had to attempt to criticise the Government mine has always been constructive criticism. No one has heard me, either inside or outside the House, making obstacles for the Government, or trying to hamper them. On the other hand, in many cases I have supported them. I have never gone under the banner of "Anti-Waste." I prefer to be honest and to say what I am. I hope I am independent however, and, as hon. Members know, it is the banner of Independence under which I go. If I honestly think a thing is right I vote
for it; if I think it is wrong I vote against it, and I do not care a two-penny piece who the proposers of these things are. I think, therefore, I can afford to laugh at the sneer about Anti-Waste.

Earl WINTERTON: I was not referring to the hon. and gallant Gentleman in my remark.

Sir C. TOWNSHEND: I am glad to hear the hon. Member did not mean me. Nobody has listened more attentively, or with greater interest, than I have to the scheme which the right hon. Gentleman has unfolded for Mesopotamia. Nobody would, if he could, support the right hon. Gentleman in any scheme for bringing about a better situation in the world more than I would, but I have some right to talk about Mesopotamia. I have suffered enough in connection with that country. I should like to make reference to one remark of the right hon. Gentleman, when he talked about my saying that I could hold Mesopotamia with one battalion.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, one division.

Sir C. TOWNSHEND: I beg your pardon—one division. I should like to explain to the House what I meant by that statement. As some hon. Members recollect, I stated that in that case I would concentrate in the seaboard provinces, with my back to the sea at Busrah. That is quite a different thing from holding the whole of the country which we call Mesopotamia, or which the Turks call Iraq, with 12 battalions. Twelve battalions is one division, and therefore what I suggested was a very modest plan compared with holding the whole country and holding the line as well with 12 battalions. You would require to have aerodromes at various points, and defensive posts would have to be put in the centres of population or the strategic points, to use a term which is now somewhat worn out. You would require to have aerodromes at such places as Kutel-Amara, Bagdad, and at places along the Tigris, and I reckon you would certainly require to have a large number if you took in the whole country right up to the frontier. I would prefer, if instead of using the word "battalions," the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the numbers of combatants. The term "battalions" is a rather misleading one, but when we speak of so many thousand
combatants that embraces all arms, and gives us a more exact idea. The Secretary of State for War, in answer to a question from some hon. Member recently, said he had still 90,000 men in Mesopotamia.

Mr. CHURCHILL: That would include followers, refugees and other people on the rations list, but would not be confined to combatants.

Sir C. TOWNSHEND: I should like to refer to some of the remarks which have been made in regard to the Arabs. It is now some years ago since I first had experience of the Arabs at the time of Abu Klea, and I have had experience of them in Mesopotamia and also in parts of Northern Africa, so that I can claim some knowledge of the Arab and his character. I know what the Arab is capable of under the influence of religious fanaticism. Those who stood in the broken square at Abu Klea or on the plains of Omdurman must have a respect for him, but I found the Arab in Mesopotamia an extraordinary mixture. He is as treacherous as a Pathan and he is often cowardly, but he is very pleasant outwardly. I have noticed that officials, when they first meet the Arab, are attracted by his good-humoured laugh and the manner in which he appreciates a joke. He is a master of dissimulation with those whom he calls "the white lords above him," or the political officer who has a well-filled treasury chest for the purposes of backsheesh. But unless you wish to have very great disappointments you must remember that, speaking generally, his religion teaches him to hate you. There is a proverb amongst them, "Kiss the dog on the mouth until thou hast got thy desire." I know what the Arab has done and how unreliable he is in many cases. Sir Percy Cox is a man whom I admire for his work with the Arabs, yet I have never seen a man so "let in" by them. The Arab only respects force and strength. The mailed fist is the only thing by which you can gain his respect. He understands that, but he puts all diplomacy down to cowardice.

Sir F. BANBURY: Is not that the same everywhere?

Sir C. TOWNSHEND: I have no desire to prolong this discussion, but I was going to recount an anecdote of Sir Percy Cox, and I hope it will not bore
the House. In Mesopotamia, after I won the battle of Nurna, I pursued the Turks some 90 miles north. Sir Percy Cox came with me as my political officer. The Arabs turned round against the Turks and massacred their wounded, and I am glad to say I shot many Arabs in retaliation, although the Turks were my enemies. When I occupied Amara they all came in and salaamed. Sir Percy Cox was in his element, with all the Arab chiefs all round him, but directly Nureddin Pasha, who had been sent from Constantinople, advanced with his army and took up a position to defend the approach to Kut-al-Amara, his army being exaggerated in numbers as the people believed, all the Arabs left us within 24 hours. Sir Percy Cox and myself met the Arabs in Durbar in their camp, and we sat amongst them; in the battle they all fought against us, those 5,000 Arabs. I did not mind that, as they made little difference in the battle. The only thing I did mind was that they massacred many of my wounded in the night. Men were left out in the desert owing to the 18 or 20 miles turning move I made with my principal mass. Consequently I had to leave some of the men, who could not be collected that night, and they were murdered, and then two or three days afterwards, as we were the victors, in came all the Arabs again, and to my disgust and amazement they were pardoned by a higher authority than myself. Needless to say, I should not have done it. The main point, however, is in regard to Mesopotamia, and as the Government mean to carry through what they have laid down, I hope with all my heart they will have success, and I would do all I could to support it. At the same time I hope they will be cautious about the Arab business. I hope they will remember what the Arab character is. There is another business, and that is, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that the whole thing hangs upon this Greek and Turkish war being stopped. In that event the right hon. Gentleman will be able to carry out what reforms he wants in Mesopotamia and Palestine and reduce that enormous garrison, but as long as that war is allowed to go on you will have continual uprisings in Mesopotamia and on the frontiers of India. I am told on reliable authority that Djemal Pasha is at Kabul.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am sure we were much edified by the speech of the
right hon. Gentleman in introducing this Estimate, and I could not help thinking how unfortunate it was that the Government had not sent him out to Cairo two and a half years ago, that for two and a half years the conduct of this Department has been in the hands of the Coalition Government and has been bandied from pillar to post between the India Office and the Foreign Office. At last the right hon. Gentleman has cut the Gordian knot and plunged out in the East to see what was the matter and to try and put things right, but meanwhile we have spent anything up to £60,000,000 of public money, and thrown it away into the Mesopotamian wastes. We have had the Foreign Office and Lord Curzon, magnetised apparently by the virtues of Sir Arnold Wilson who has since got a job somewhere else, into believing that the only way to conduct Mesopotamia was on the extravagant scale which has been carried out in the last two and a half years. That has gone on until the taxpayer could stand it no longer, and finally the Government had the brilliant idea of sending the right hon. Gentleman out and through him of enforcing economy. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his being sent to Cairo, on the use he has made of that visit, and on its results, but I join with my predecessor on these Benches in asking him whether he really thinks it likely that he will be able to hold Iraq with 12 battalions. To have suggested that before this visit to Cairo would have been laughed out of court, and it is obviously, from the right hon. Gentleman's speech to-day, a gamble at the present moment, but I am not at all certain that it is not a gamble into which I would have gone myself, and I am not at all certain that this gamble, in the right hon. Gentleman's hands, may not come off, if he gets the goodwill of the people, and if there is no pressing from the other side by people with offers and temptations greater than we can offer—but, obviously, the whole success of this gamble, this leaving Sir Percy Cox in Bagdad without any support, exactly as Sir Louis Cavagnari was left in Kabul many years ago, the whole chance of this turning out well depends on whether Kemal Pasha desires that it should turn out well.
The Turks have bossed and bullied the Arabs for centuries, and the Arabs of
Bagdad are much more afraid of the Turks than of Sir Percy Cox, or even of the right hon. Gentleman. If your Turks some 40 miles North of Mosul on the Kurdistan border are hostile, if they are determined to get us out of Iraq, they will have every chance of intriguing successfully with any Arab Government, any Arab State, resting upon Bagdad. The whole success of this solution depends upon peace with Turkey and upon that peace being honestly carried out by Turkey. How delightful it is to see the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary trying to persuade the Prime Minister to make peace. The situation was almost exactly the same six months ago, when the Prime Minister tried to persuade the right hon. Gentleman to make peace in order to stop the waste in Russia, which was even more extravagant than this. Now the rôle is reversed, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with the wings of the Angel of Peace bursting from his shoulders, is trying to persuade the Prime Minister not to fall entirely under the spell of M. Venezelos, is trying to disillusion him of his Constantinian Greeks and to prove to him that in the interest of British trade, and finance, and economy, as well as of morality, it is desirable that we should end this warlike adventure in Asia Minor and withdraw our troops. I hope he will be successful. If peace can be obtained on any terms, I would have peace. I hope that peace will be obtained by retaining the freedom of the Straits, but I do not want that peace to be obtained by leaving the Turks in Smyrna and Thrace under the control of the Greeks, especially of the Constantinian Greeks. I want to make that point clear. This is a gamble just as much as the Dardanelles was a gamble, and as justified as was the Dardanelles gamble. I hope it will turn out better, but if it is going to turn out better, it depends, not upon the right hon. Gentleman's agents in Mesopotamia, but upon his action in his own Cabinet in straightening up this dispute between Greece and Turkey at the present time.
Why have we waited for two and a half years for all this? The expenditure has gone on, and at any moment the right hon. Gentleman could have gone out to Cairo and put things straight. He could have done it at this time last year just as well, if he had been sent, of course,
and at any moment since the Armistice day in 1918, if somebody had gone out and said, "This waste is to stop," and put his foot firmly down upon the extravagance of a military-cum-Indian administration, it could have been done. We should not have had the rebellion of last year. We should have saved £50,000,000 of our money, and I attribute the whole trouble to the absolute want of co-operation and knowledge on the part of the Coalition Government. We on the Labour Benches have constantly urged the same course upon the Government. Just as for two and a half years we urged them to play the straight game in Russia, so we have been urging them for two and a half years to cut this wasteful extravagance which has been grafted upon the Mesopotamian administration; at last they come round, and now they expect us to get up and throw them bouquets and say what wonderful administrators they are. We admit that they get better under our tuition, but it takes them so long to improve. Though they know they are the only people fit to govern, and that we of the Labour party are quite unfit to govern, I cannot help thinking that if there are a few more changes of policy such as this put before the country, the country will begin to be a little sceptical as to whether that Front Bench itself is quite fitted to govern. Let me now come to details. As I understand, Mesopotamia and Palestine together are to cost us in future between £9,000,000 and £10,000,000, and I want to know whether all that sum is rightly charged to the Middle Eastern Department. I will take first of all the 12 battalions. Are they to be European or Indian?

Mr. CHURCHILL: They will be partly the one and partly the other. We must have a certain proportion of white regular troops.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In that case these white regular troops will be living and working in Mesopotamia instead of living and working in England or Ireland, and the whole of the charge for those troops is not really a fair charge against the Middle Eastern Department. Or is the fact, as I have heard rumoured, that the right hon. Gentleman was quite content with Indian troops defending Mesopotamia and that the War Office persuaded him that unless the British Army was to be cut down in numbers, occupation must be found for them somewhere
and on some other Vote than the Army Vote?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No. There must be a certain balance or proportion between the forces. The bulk will be Indian, but there will be a certain number of British. I should not be prepared to take men from the War Office if I did not require them. The whole interest of the Minister in charge is to economise, and I do not want to pay for a man I could do without.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am glad to hear that. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that it is possible that the War Office is anxious to cut down the Army Vote as an Army Vote, and transfer items which should appear upon the Army Estimates to the Middle Eastern Estimates, and that that in effect is what has been done. An Army which we should have had to support at home, and which would appear on the Army Estimates, is being put down to Mesopotamia, and we cannot treat that as an additional expenditure due to Mesopotamia. It is an additional expense due to what the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues consider is the proper strength for the British Army. It is home or Imperial defence which is taken into account, and not merely Mesopotamia. In regard to the Air Service, I understand that eight squadrons of aeroplanes will be employed in Palestine and Mesopotamia. I do not imagine that those eight squadrons are only useful for that purpose, and it seems to me that those eight squadrons are getting the very best war training imaginable, that they are the reserve where the British Army ought to be, at the strategic point, at the centre of things, getting their experience of warfare and training themselves for every eventuality. If there was no Mesopotamia or Palestine these air squadrons would be on Salisbury plain. As it is the charge has been transferred from the Air Estimates and the new baby put upon the new nurse, and this makes up £1,250,000. The troops amount to another £2,000,000. Really, these items in the consideration of this Committee, should be deducted from the charge on Mesopotamia and charged to the War Department and back to the Army Estimates. The same may be said in respect to Palestine and the 5,000 troops there costing £2,500,000 a year. Every one of those troops is wanted either in Palestine or Egypt for the protection of the Suez Canal, and if
you had not had Palestine you would still require these troops there. Therefore, the people who drew up the Army Estimates have managed very skilfully to put on to the Jews this £2,500,000. It is a charge on the British Army, and we have no right to say that we are spending that money on making Zionism possible.
I naturally subscribe to everything that the Noble Lord opposite and the right hon. Gentleman have said about Sir Herbert Samuel. Both the right hon. Gentleman and the Noble Lord have imbibed in their stay in Palestine some of the atmosphere of that country. No doubt since the Armistice, or perhaps before it, the military atmosphere there was anti-Jew and pro-Arab. They moved in the society of the effendis, the ex-Turkish officials owning large acres; the old lords of the country. They liked them. They got on with them. They listened to their views, and when the Noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman get up in this House and tell us what are the views of the Arabs about the Jews, how bitterly hostile they are, they are voicing the views of the Arab effendis, the old officials of the Turkish Government. These people hate the Jews, and for a perfectly good and sufficient reason. The Jews go in from Rumania, Russia, Poland, and go in not only as Jews but as outposts of Labour ideals, of Western ideas of civilisation, they plant themselves down in Palestine. The first thing the Jew does is to start a trade union. The next thing he does is to try and get the uneducated and unskilled Arabs to join him in raising wages. There is nothing on earth that any governing class hate more than the ignorant, stupid, slavish proletariat getting ideas as to what wages it ought to get. These wretched Jews, these Bolshevik Jews, start telling the Arabs they ought to get more wages when they are working on Government contracts. Hitherto the effendis have had the time of their lives, getting the Arabs to work for them and swindling them of their pay. This sort of thing has gone on in these Eastern countries for countless centuries. Now that the westernised Jews go into the country and teach that this is not what the working classes ought to put up with the effendis do not like it. They pass it on to the Noble Lord (Earl Winterton) at dinner. The officers of the British Army burn with zeal when they think of
it. Naturally, of course, they, like the effendis, like to get their labour cheap; they do not like these new ideas; their life becomes more expensive.

Sir F. BANBURY: Do not the Jews get their labour cheap in Russia at the present time: they pay nothing at all?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Baronet does not understand. The Jews here are an Eastern race. The Jews in Palestine are the pioneers of Western civilisation, breaking in upon the immemorial slumber of the ages. It is these horrible new Europeans that are the victims of the pogroms! It is not the Arab cultivator that hates them. He works in with the Jews quite nicely, is good friends with the Jews and does not quarrel with them. The Noble Lord, I think, really ought to know that most of the Arabs are pastoral, not cultivators. They wander to and fro on the earth, and are not likely to be injured by close connection with the Jewish element. It is not the poor country Arab at all who counts for much. The people who count are these financial Arabs who have been in the custom of swindling the inhabitants of Palestine. They hire the cheap labour, and are in favour of killing off the new agitators and emigrants. All these things work up together, and the effendi uses, them for his own purpose to stir up the low class Arab into murdering the Jews—and that is the history of pogroms all over the world.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman refers to the Levantines.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Levantine in a red fez. He stirs up the "black hundreds" to butcher the Jews, and on the first occasion of these riots the Government immediately stopped the influx of more Jews into Palestine. That is the worst possible policy to pursue. That is putting a premium on the pogroms. If you stop more Jews going in, that is exactly what the effendis want—to keep Palestine a preserve for the old ideas. When you give these people what they want in return for murdering the Jews you are likely to require more than 5,000 troops there. Unfortunately, Sir Herbert Samuel gave in to the Arabs. I hope if he has to choose again he will pay a little less attention to the evidence that is being concocted to prove that Jewish agitators
and Bolsheviks came straight from Lenin at Moscow.
There is one way in which you can protect the Jews without throwing any administrative charge upon the revenues or the taxpayer of this country, and without increasing the garrison of 5,000 English troops; and that is by simply allowing the Jews to form a defensive force of their own. They had an excellent regiment during the War. That regiment did admirable service. At the end of the War the military administration, as it then was in Palestine, immediately disbanded it. Let them form their own regiments. The Palestinian Jews and the Zionist organisation are perfectly prepared themselves to find the money for the equipment for the troops. Give them a chance to defend their own settlements and we shall hear much less of this danger spot in the East. It is not necessary to fear that they will attack the Arabs. The Jews are a most peaceable people. They know the minority is always unwise to attack the majority. At the present time all the police of that country are Arabs. These Arab police stimulate others to assist in massacring the Jewish inhabitants. The danger for the Jews is very real. I submit to the Government they should take every step they can to assist in the formation of territorial forces to protect the Jews, and at the same time to relieve the taxpayers of this country from an expense which otherwise will fall upon their shoulders. Meanwhile the right hon. Gentleman has my blessing. I could wish that years ago he had been appointed to the Colonial Office instead of the War Office. We might have saved millions at both offices. Wherever he is he becomes the stormy petrel for his own department, and I cannot help thinking that it would be well that the rest of the Government should come to take his new view, that after all, peace is the principal necessity for the inhabitants of this country.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There has been more or less a chorus of admiration on the head of my right hon. Friend this afternoon in this Debate. I certainly will not be the one to break that general pæan of congratulation upon the policy which he outlined so lucidly. I must say that I entirely agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down. I only wish that the policy which is now being
pursued in Mesopotamia had been pursued from the moment of the Armistice onward, and that instead of setting up in Mesopotamia a huge, expensive, and unpopular Anglo-Indian bureaucracy, with what Lord Curzon used to call an Arab façade, we could have got the real thing, namely an English façade with the Arab reality behind it. When my hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir C. Towns-hend) talks about the difficulties of the Englishman and of the foreigner dealing with the Arabs there is something in what he says, and I rejoice to think that the Government have made up their minds that the head of the Mesopotamian Government is to be an Arab, who will not be a merely titular head, but will have power. I quite agree that for some time to come it will be necessary to deal with the Arabs of Mesopotamia after the manner of their own liking, their own history, and their own ideas and methods of civilisation. That is why I rejoice that the Government have succeeded in overcoming the scruples which they formerly felt and have not allowed one of their Allies to prevent a Sherifian candidate being nominated for the governorship of Mesopotamia and the Assembly of Notables if the people of Mesopotamia so wish. We have too long lived under the threat of the French Press that if we allowed any member of the Sherifian family to take responsibilities in Mesopotamia they would cause difficulty.
I am profoundly glad that that difficulty has been overcome, and that at last the Emir Feisal has actually set out for Mesopotamia. Those of us who have known him so long, and who were in the Arab movement from the beginning of the War, know that France has nothing to fear from him, and the French prejudice was manufactured by a few interested adventurers resident in France, and not in the East. So far from France having anything to fear from the Emir Feisal, I am sure that we have in him a thorough Arab, in religion, tradition, and race, and he is a true friend, not only to this country but to the whole of the alliance, and of the ideals we fought for and stood for in the War. He is a man of proved courage in the War, and I rejoice to think that the right hon. Gentleman has taken his courage in his hands and allowed his candidature to go forward.

Sir J. D. REES: Is he not a Sunni?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The greater part of the villayets of Basra and Baghdad are Shiahs, and probably there is no individual family more suitable to supply the candidate for Mesopotamia than a Sherifian family. The theological question is very important in Mesopotamia. If you read Miss Gertrude Bell's interesting document, giving an account of the recent rising in Mesopotamia, you will find that she points out that the Sherifian cause is supported by the Shiah population in Basra and Baghdad, and I believe that is an established fact.
The House of Commons must look at these questions from the point of view of its responsibilities. I know it has responsibilities as the representative of the British taxpayer, but still more, to my mind, it is responsible as the guardian of a far greater responsibility than that of the taxpayer, namely, the honour of the British Empire. That is why I resent the type of article you see in the "Daily Mirror" and the Anti-Waste Press—[An HON. MEMBER: "And the 'Morning Post!'"]—in which the writers seem to think that you can retire from Jerusalem and Baghdad without loss of honour. You have entered into honourable obligations with the people of those countries and with the people who have befriended you in fact you have entered into wide international obligations. You have set your seal to a covenant and to undertakings and, in a moment of financial embarrassment, to say that the British Empire is to throw up its honourable obligations and retire is simply setting a doom upon the British Empire. Never in the history of the world has a great Empire taken up obligations of this kind and gone back upon them without being doomed. The Anti-Waste campaigners, who are the Little Englanders of to-day, and the narrow-minded politicians of to-day, what do they care about Jerusalem or the British Empire? They only care about winning bye-elections and about getting an anti-Semitic cry in St. George's, Hanover Square.
We cannot get out of the international obligations we have entered into, and we cannot clear out of those countries without loss of national honour. I do not believe, hardly hit as we are by over-taxation, that we have any right to overthrow those obligations at the present moment. At least let us have a chance of trying the present policy, and of seeing
whether those obligations and ideals which we fought for, which we have inserted in treaties and enshrined in covenants, will not be successful in the end. We may have to pay something in the first year or two, and we may not get much out of it for a time, but in the long run we shall have a greater Empire, and I think we shall be doing a greater service to the Empire by hanging on than by adopting a policy of scuttling.
We have a duty to the world in Mesopotamia, and it is not limited to the formation of an Arab Government. I am not a great believer in its oil and mineral resources, but I am a believer in its agricultural resources, and in the fact that Mesopotamia was once the granary of the ancient world and the centre of ancient civilisation, can with modern civilisation and enterprise once again bring to the common stock of the food supplies and the cotton supplies of the world the production which is so badly needed. To allow Mesopotamia to go back to anarchy and to go back to the government of the Turk, who for 400 years allowed nothing to be done for that country, to throw away 14,000,000 acres of fertile land, capable of growing crop after crop, is a thing we ought not to do. We should proceed with the ideal we had before us in the past, and which is contained in Article 22 of the Treaty, namely that it is a sacred trust of civilisation which we have undertaken, and not something which we are going to get anything out of and run away directly it costs us something.
It is in that spirit in these ancient centres of civilisation that we have an opportunity, by the part we are playing in the world, of showing that we can carry out the highest principle of our trust. In practice, what does it mean? It does not mean withdrawing to Basra. It means working with the goodwill of the inhabitants for a few years until they have built up their own national life and defence. That is the kernel of the whole thing. My Noble Friend and I have agitated in this House for the formation of Arab levies and the sending back of the Indian troops. We did this two years ago, and I am delighted to hear that the Arab levies are now being formed. I hope to see the day when no Indian troops will be employed in the Middle East. The sooner we can get them out the better for India, and
the better it will be for the Middle East. I hope to see a progressive reduction in the British garrison and in the number of British officers required in all those territories.
I do not think I need say anything more about Mesopotamia, but I want to say a few words about Arabia. Ever since the beginning of the War the way in which rival followers and rival Emirs have been subsidised by different Government Departments in the Arabian Peninsula has been heartbreaking, and at last we have got it established that one Minister, and one Minister alone, is to be allowed to fish in those troubled waters. As long as you had the India Office subsidising and running someone, and Lord Curzon running and subsidising someone else, it was quite hopeless. Instead of the India Office and the Foreign Office—whose record in this matter is pretty black—we have now adopted a fresh line, and we have a fresh staff to deal with the situation.
7.0 P.M.
I was particularly glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said on this subject, in view of the extremely unfair articles that have appeared in "The Times" in February and March this year, attacking the Sherifian family. Those articles, in my opinion, were designed deliberately to frustrate the best interests of this country and the line of policy that has been pursued by us during the War and subsequently. They are articles which have done infinite harm in the Middle East, and a protest appeared in yesterday's "Times" That was a most unfortunate publication of articles. This will be fully realised by anybody who knows the history of the movement, and they can only have been written with inside official information and never ought to have been published. I only hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do something to clear up the situation at Aden, because the two Turkish provinces in South Arabia are, so to speak, left by the Treaty in the air, and the hinterland of the British Protectorate at Aden is not even yet clear and restored. In spite of questions in, this House we have retained a battalion of Indian troops at Hodeidah for months and months, for no purpose whatsoever, at great expense. The matter has been allowed to drift on, and there has been no real effort made to clear up the situa-
tion in the south-western corner of the Arabian peninsula. I only hope—and I should like to have some information from the Colonial Secretary now that the matter is exclusively and entirely within his control and initiative, and that it is no longer a shuttlecock between the India Office and the Foreign Office with nothing being done—that throughout the whole of Arabia the right hon. Gentleman has got the initiative and control over policy.
I turn to Palestine. I do not agree with what my Noble Friend (Earl Winterton) said about Palestine entirely, but I agree to a greater extent, though not entirely, with what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Wedgwood), I certainly share the view if you take Galilee, for instance, that the Arab cultivator and the small Arab in Palestine gets on extremely well with his Jewish neighbours and his Jewish neighbours with him. I quite agree in Jaffa, and in the towns and in the immediate vicinity of the towns, directly you come to the middle class of both sects of population that, so far from there being any amelioration of racial animosity, there has been an increase during the last few months. It is lamentable. I have been in that country and have held a responsible office in that country. I was a political officer in Jerusalem all through the summer of 1918. I always thought that the only chance for Palestine to become prosperous and go ahead was to attract Jewish capital, Jewish brains, Jewish labour, and Jewish energy to restore actually the very soil of the country. I was also convinced that in the Levantine portion of Palestine, that portion of Palestine west of the Jordan—they are not true Arabs, because the population of Palestine west of the Jordan is a mixture composed of Phoenicians, Canaanites, Arabs, Egyptians, and other tribes—if the Moslems of that country were to be worthy of the great traditions of the Holy Land, it was absolutely essential to bridge the gulf between them and other races, and more particularly the Jews. I believed the Jews—they are original cousins in blood, with great traditions of civilisation behind them—were the people to do it. Lord Beaconsfield, in books like "Tancred," set out ideas that have been long associated with that perpetual Zionist movement which has gone on for the last 2,000 years, and which
does not depend on any particular number of Jews in Palestine, but on the association of Jewish energies with the ultimate reconstruction of Palestine. When I saw what Jewish, colonists have done in Palestine I was convinced that it was a practical policy.
I quite agree that there is no room in Palestine for a very large number of Jews, and probably not a very large number of Jews want to go there. There are 15,000,000 Jews in the world, and it is very fortunate that the whole 15,000,000 do not want to go into a country which is about the size of Wales. A large number will remain, as heretofore, scattered throughout the nations of the world, without any particular home, but bound together as all Jews are by a common religious tradition. That common Jewish tradition has one centre only, and that is Palestine. If you want to understand the Zionist movement you have to understand something of the Jewish religion. Palestine is inseparably bound up with their religious ideas and religious sentiment. It is essentially connected with the idea that the Bible was written by Palestinian Jews; that the greatest productions of the Hebrew race and their contributions to humanity came from Palestine; that the Psalms came from Palestine, and if they are going to write Psalms again they are going to be written in Palestine by Jews. That is the idea behind Zionism, and it called forth the Balfour Declaration.
It is that sentiment which has caused a great many Christian people all over the world to sympathise with the Zionist idea, and it is that cultural aspect of Zionism which will be of enormous value to the Near East. The Near East wants a movement of that kind. If, in the coming century, there is going to be an approximation between East and West, there is either going to be that approximation or a great gulf fixed between East and West. There is either going to be a split between Asia and Africa, on the one hand, and Europe on the other, or a bridge built. I am not at all sure that that bridge cannot and will not be built in Palestine. It is quite possible, from a Jewish university in Jerusalem, that West can be explained to East and East to West, and that you will be able to revivify what the West wants from the Eastern ethical
and spiritual ideal, as similarly you will give to the East some of the practical, social and political ideals that have been worked out in the West.
It is that aspect of Zionism which is so important and significant. You see it working out in quite small things. The right hon. Gentleman has described his visit to Richon le Zion. The mere existence of a Jewish peasantry is, to our minds, something quite extraordinary and wonderful. We associate Jews with Park Lane and Whitechapel. I stayed with a Jewish farmer, going out in the morning with his cattle and coming in in the evening after labour in the fields, and living in communities where the old Hebrew is talked. That is a charming and new thing which is worth encouraging at some sacrifice. I want to say a word about the difficulty between these pioneers, who deserve our sympathy and encouragement, and the Arab, who is a little afraid of those immigrants and particularly of a new invasion. We have to understand the situation. I agree that the new immigrants come, for the most part, from the Ghettos of Eastern Europe, from the Ukraine, Roumania and Bukovina, where they lived a secluded life under persecution apart; where the tides of the late War passed over them, probably killing off most of their families. They have seen Bolshevism come up, and Wrangel, and various people, who have all persecuted them in turn. Those who were Zionists were persecuted by the Bolsheviks, be cause those people stood for a national view which was proclaimed by the Bolsheviks in Russia as being the antithesis of Bolshevism. These people come with all their prejudices from Eastern Europe, and admittedly they do not form that golden bridge between East and West. I hope that the Colonial Office, which can do a great deal in this matter, will do something more to encourage the emigration into Palestine of Sephardic Jews, that is to say, the Jews who were originally in Spain, and lived with the Arabs and who know the Arabs and have the tradition of Arab culture. You will find them all over the Mediterranean. They have gone to Salonika and Smyrna, and further East. Those are the people who ought to be facilitated and encouraged to go to Palestine to lay the foundations of the national home. Culturally they are enormously valuable, and will make a success of this great experiment.
I do not want to emphasise the Jewish-Arab aspect of this question; that will work itself out in time. In Jewish Palestine the task that Great Britain has to perform is to ensure that the Christian holy places will be as well and better looked after in the future than in the past. Why are we always concentrating on the Moslem and Jewish aspects of Palestine? Cannot we occasionally remember the Christian aspect of Palestine? After all, for too long, Easter after Easter the Church of the Holy Sepulchre has been the scene of bloodshed and sectarian rivalries which have been encouraged by the Turkish Government. For centuries Christians have been offended by the sight of Christianity in Jerusalem. England has a unique and great responsibility and opportunity. Are we going to hand that over to anybody else? Is there anybody else who can take it? The Crusaders may have been impetuous, and have wanted to thrust their idea on somebody else, but is there not some moral idea behind the Crusades? Is there not the idea that in the land which we all regard as holy there should be such conditions of government that for the pilgrims and representatives of all nations and races Jerusalem shall be regarded as a house of prayer for all men? Any policy which entails scuttling from Palestine and handing it back to the Turk, or anybody else, will provoke an outburst of the most deep indignation on the part of the most religious-minded people in this country which no anti-waste campaign could possibly withstand. I must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the reductions he has already made, and I shall support him in every way I can in what he is doing. I want to say one word in this connection. Whatever he does, do not let us make the same mistake in Palestine as was committed in Mesopotamia two years ago, that is to say, have too many English officials; rather have a less efficient Government, manned by Palestinians, Jews, Christians and Moslems, getting them to work together in the same office. They may not be as efficient as British administrators, but let us keep the number of British officials in Palestine down to the barest possible limits. I hear accounts that there are too many already, and it will be most unfortunate if the same mistake as was
made in Mesopotamia were to be produced in Palestine again.
One word about Trans-Jordania. Across the Jordan you have a real Arab country, and I am delighted that there a settlement has been arrived at. A settlement has been arrived at, for the present at any rate, by having a member of the Sherifian family and by trying to start something like a decent administration. For centuries there have been bloody feuds between the tribes. Their conditions are quite separate. Do not let us create any economic barriers between them. Free trade and eventually federation are absolutely essential. Free intercourse also is absolutely essential. I am quite sure that that country can never develop except through Palestine. The right hon. Gentleman referred to his water schemes. I hope he will go on with them, and that he will get to work in Eastern Palestine. Too much time is being wasted in preparing and thinking out schemes. What we want is actual results, and then when we can show the world those actual results, these people will not wish to exchange their position under Great Britain as the mandatory power for any other form of rule. If we show no results, then they will say: "Political memories are short, why not let the Turks come back?" If they do come back, it will be for another 400 years. We have to have peace with Turkey. It is absolutely vital if we are going to reconstruct the Arab territories. We shall have to recognise the Turkish, the Arab and the Jewish national movement, and we shall have to make an honourable understanding between them. The less of Foreign Office interference and of Foreign Office control there is, to my mind, the better. The Government must do everything it can to put a stop to the war now going on in Asia Minor. It must use its good efforts for peace, and make it quite clear that the national movements will be recognised and the desire to have their own civilisation considered. I believe if we have such a policy the right hon. Gentleman will make a great name for himself in history and this House will have cause to be proud of its own work.

Lord R. CECIL: With a great deal of what has fallen from the hon. Member who has just spoken I find myself in agreement. But there was one observation with which I did not quite agree.
He expressed his great pleasure that the Middle East Department had been handed over to the Colonial Office. I share with other hon. Members of the Committee the admiration which has been expressed for the right hon. Gentleman's speech at the beginning of this Debate, but I still think, in principle, that as a matter of organisation it is entirely wrong to hand over the Middle Eastern part of Europe to the Colonial Office. This Debate has shown that it is so. I do not object to its being handed over to a single Department. On the contrary, I agree with the last speaker that it was a fantastic arrangement which existed in the Arabian Peninsula when one Government Department was supplying rifles in order that an Arab chief might shoot down the followers of another chief who had the support of another Government Department. I am not at all sure that this Department ought not to be kept in the Foreign Office. You cannot treat the administration of these countries without reference to the policy you are pursuing in neighbouring countries. How can you really discuss the proper policy to be pursued in Palestine irrespective of the policy you are pursuing in Egypt? The two countries must have immense concern with one another. But here you have Egypt left under the Foreign Office and Palestine put under the Colonial Office. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend can tell me which Department deals with the Arabian Peninsula.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is a very complicated matter. The initiation of policy rests with the Colonial Office, but it is carried out in consultation with the Foreign Office in relation to the Hedjas. The Foreign Office has general control. I act in consultation with the Foreign Secretary.

Lord R. CECIL: How do you communicate with the Foreign Secretary?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do so directly.

Lord R. CECIL: How about Aden?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Aden is to be transferred to the Middle East Department directly we have adjusted with the India Office the financial conditions under which the transfer shall be made. I am endeavouring to make the best bargain I can.

Lord R. CECIL: And what about Egypt?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That remains with the Foreign Office.

Lord R. CECIL: This statement shows how very unsatisfactory the present arrangement really is. I do not say that it may not be better to have the Colonial Office instead of the India Office, but they have added this additional complication. Any policy which refers to the Hedjas is to be initiated by the Colonial Office and subsequently carried out through the Foreign Office. Of course a good deal will depend on the conciliatory methods adopted by my right hon. Friend, but we cannot always hope to have so conciliatory a Minister, and, after all, it is not the Minister it is the Office which has to be considered. You have added a new series of complications by divorcing your policy in the Middle East from your policy in Anatolia; your policy in Mesopotamia from your policy in Persia, and your policy in Smyrna from your policy in Silesia. I do not know that anyone will differ from me in saying that that is a form of political organisation which is most unsatisfactory. My hon. Friend thoroughly distrusts the present Foreign Secretary. I do not know whether that mistrust is shared by the Prime Minister. If it is the proper thing is to get a new Foreign Secretary and not to break up the Foreign Office. It is no use nibbling at the Foreign Office, and taking away from it first the administration of the League of Nations and then the administration of the Middle East, simply because you do not like your present Foreign Minister.
I quite agree that the policy which the right hon. Gentleman has announced is the policy which personally I have always wished to see carried out in reference to the Middle East. But my complaint is that made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and the hon. Member for Stafford, namely, that it was not done 2½ years ago. I am afraid that is a serious defect in our present policy. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Stafford to sneer at the anti-waste party. I am not a member of that party, but I do know that it represents a very strong feeling in all parts of the country, and not merely among a few eccentric politicians, as my hon. Friend seems to suggest. By carrying on this
extravagant administration in the Middle East, and particularly in Mesopotamia, for two years, the Government have made great difficulties in carrying on what I believe to be the essential and necessary policy at the present time. The great charge I make against the Government is that it is handing over to this particular Department the administration of Palestine. I fully admit that our policy in Palestine has been by far the best feature of the Government policy as a whole. I believe, with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, that the policy of Zionism is a sound one. We had a very eloquent passage in his speech explaining the moral and spiritual side of the policy of Zionism, and it is only right I should add that this policy was adopted by the Government not only for the reasons given by my hon. Friend, but for good solid business reasons as well. It was a very essential part of our policy that we should adopt measures which would show that we were not unsympathetic towards the great current of feeling in the Jewish race, and while I was personally in favour of that policy because I am sure it is perfectly sound. I am glad to hear from my right hon. Friend that there is no thought on the part of the Government of abandoning the policy. I also fully agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said as to our position in Palestine being a very onerous position. It is quite true it is going to be onerous, although I hope it will not be so financially. It is going to prove a difficult piece of administration, it is no use denying that. We have got two races to consolidate in Palestine. One is in a small minority and yet by far the more progressive of the two races. That is an administrative problem which I believe only an administrator born in this country could be trusted to face. I was always in favour of our undertaking the administration of Palestine. I am sure it is essential it should be done. It is essential to the peace of the world that we should have a properly administered Palestine. It is also a sound policy for us to undertake the duty. But I do regret, and regret most bitterly that owing to the diplomacy pursued, various parts of the world were led to believe that we were grabbing at something in Palestine which would be of special advantage to the interests of Great Britain. It has done us a great deal of harm ever since.
We are constantly exposed to the retort in foreign capitals and in foreign newspapers that we have got everything that we wanted out of the Peace, and now we are standing in the way of other countries getting what they want. That is very unjust, but we ought to have made it clear from the outset that we were ready to undertake as a sacred trust for civilisation the administration of Palestine—that it was as a duty, and not for profit in any way.
For the rest of the Government policy—I am not talking of the policy announced this afternoon, but am speaking generally of the policy of the Government in the Middle East—I must say that I think the speech of my right hon. Friend is really a proclamation of the bankruptcy of the policy of the Government up to now. It has been marked, in the Middle East especially, by an infirmity of purpose and an indifference to pledges which make it one of the blackest pages of British diplomatic history. Let me give two or three instances in justification of that observation. I see that, in the Estimate presented to us, £400,000 is put down for the maintenance and resettlement of the Assyrians. Let me remind the Committee what their history is. We induced the Assyrians to take up arms on our behalf, during the War, to resist the Turks. I do not know exactly what pledges were given to them. They were given by the officer on the spot, and I do not know exactly how far they went, but at any rate we induced them to take up arms. The result was that they were driven from their homes, and they came pouring down through the upper portion of Persia into Mesopotamia. We thereupon gave them hospitality at a camp called Baqubah, run, I am told, in the most extravagant way. We made no attempt, apparently, to resettle them anywhere until November of last year. We just allowed them to live on our bounty. In November of last year, we sent them out with an expedition, apparently in an effort to get them back to Assyria. I do not know exactly what happened, but the expedition was a complete failure. Many of them were killed, and the rest had to come back ultimately and are still in our charge. Now, I believe for the first time, a rational plan for the resettlement of these people has been adopted, and we are going to try and settle this question definitely. I do not think that anyone
can look back with pleasure on our dealings with the Assyrians, whether the incident be treated as an example of successful administration or of generosity and good faith.
Then there is a sum of £140,000 for the Armenian refugees. Why are they here? Why have they not gone back to Armenia? It is the same thing. We gave pledge after pledge to the Armenians that we would do our best to see that they were established in independence in their own country. In January, 1918, the Prime Minister, speaking, not only after close consultation with the Cabinet of the day, but with the leaders of opinion—with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley and with Lord Grey of Falloden—it was as national an expression of policy as could possibly be made—

Sir J. D. REES: Did the pledge include the permanent support and maintenance of the Armenians outside their own country?

Lord R. CECIL: No. I will read to my hon. Friend, whose views on this question are, I know, different from mine, exactly what was said about the Armenians:
Outside Europe we think the same principles should be applied. While we do not challenge the maintenance of the Turkish Empire in the homelands of the Turkish race with its capital at Constantinople—the passage between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea being internationalised and neutralised—Arabia, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine are, in our judgment, entitled to a recognition of their separate national conditions. What the exact form of that recognition in each particular case should be, need not here be discussed, beyond stating that it would be impossible to restore to their former sovereignty the territories to which I have already referred.
That is a definite pledge that the territory of Armenia is not to be restored to its former sovereignty.

Sir J. D. REES: There is nothing about support outside.

Lord R. CECIL: No, I am not dealing with that. I am pointing out that if we had carried out our pledges it would not have been necessary to support them. They would have been able to go back to an independent Armenia. That is the whole of my case. I need not elaborate
it; it is well known that we gave those pledges. How did we carry them out? We have done nothing to assist the Armenians to maintain their independence except one thing, with which I will deal in a moment. We spent millions in assisting Denekin and other Russian adventurers—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: For which you voted

Lord R. CECIL: I do not know that I voted for it; I may have. But we did spend about £100,000,000—£50,000,000 down and £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 in stores, if I remember rightly. A tenth of that would have established Armenia in independence and security. What did we do for Armenia after giving those pledges? We sent her at the last minute—a month before she was attacked—a consignment of Ross rifles and ammunition. Ross rifles, I understand, are an exceedingly complicated form of military rifle, and I believe they were totally useless in the hands of partially trained mountaineers. That is all we did. If we had taken any trouble, if we had sent, I do not say a large force, but, say, a small military mission with adequate munitions, we could, at very small cost, have enabled the Armenians, who were in large numbers relatively to the Turks, but quite untrained, to retain their independence. We should not have had to maintain them in Mesopotamia or elsewhere, and we should have erected a most important, stable point in the Middle East, which would have been of incalculable advantage to us in the future. What has happened? These unhappy people, deserted by us, harassed by the Turks, have turned to the Russians, who had befriended them, or at any rate governed them relatively decently before the War. At this minute it is the Russians who are in control, as I understand, of the only part of Armenia that is left. I confess that that is not a record which it gives me any pleasure to contemplate.
Nor can I say very much more for the way in which we have treated the Arabs. Take the Syrian side. We gave, undoubtedly, as my right hon. Friend very fairly admitted, pledges to King Hussein to induce him to come into the War on our side. Those pledges, on any reading that I can make out, certainly led him to believe that he would have Damascus, Horns, Hama, and Aleppo. He has not
got them. It is quite true that at about the same time we entered into what is known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which is thought, as I consider wrongly, to be in conflict with our pledges to King Hussein. There were practical difficulties, but I do not think that those practical difficulties were incapable of being overcome. I believe it would have been perfectly possible to have entered into fresh negotiations after the entry of America into the War, by which we could have arrived at a satisfactory settlement of all those questions with the French and the Arabs before the end of the War. Then, at the end of the War, we again made a declaration, this time to the French. The effect of that declaration was that the Arabs were to have complete self-government—complete autonomy—and that they were to be governed according to their own wishes, and were not to have anyone imposed upon them except with their own consent. An American Commission went out there and took evidence as to what the Arabs of Syria wanted. Their conclusions have never been published, but, unless rumour is more than usually untrustworthy, they were in favour of a different solution from that which was ultimately adopted.
All these things are deplorable. They show no fixed or settled purpose, no real consistency in dealing with this question, or indeed with any questions. It is just the same in the case of Mesopotamia. What is the history of our dealings with Mesopotamia? When we first went to Baghdad, the first thing we said was a flowery Proclamation that was issued in our name saying, "You are to govern your own country; we are not going to interfere in any way; we are merely here to enable you to restore the old Arab Kingdom and the old Arab history." That policy was re-affirmed in November, 1918, and yet, as was said just now, instead of carrying it out we established in Mesopotamia an autocratic, bureaucratic system of an Indian type, in which the Mesopotamians had practically no share whatever, and we kept that going until June of last year. Then, at last, after constant pressure from various quarters, the Government adopted a different policy. There was no reason, I assert most strongly, why that policy should not have been adopted in the spring of 1919 just as well as a year and a half later. Then we should not only have carried out our
undertaking, we should not only have kept our name free from reproach, but we should have saved millions of pounds. What is the net result? We have had a delay of two years; we have incurred enormous expense. We know the expense that has been incurred in the past, and we know that my right hon. Friend hopes next year to be able to reduce it to £9,000,000 or £10,000,000 a year. That might have been done two years ago, and it would have been done had we carried out our pledges. That is the point. It is not that we require to do anything eccentric. We promised to do these things. The policy has been laid down in the clearest way by more than one Government, but we failed to carry it out.
I know it is said that this delay was the inevitable result of America not making up her mind as to what share she would take in the administration of the Middle East, but I have always regarded that excuse as absolutely worthless. There might have been doubt as to what America was going to do as regards some of these territories, but there was no doubt about two things. The first was that they ought to be taken away from the Turks immediately. That was a fixed point in our policy. That could have been done immediately. The second thing there was no doubt about is that there was never any question about the Americans taking any part of Mesopotamia or Syria. The only question was as to Armenia. So far as Mesopotamia was concerned there never was any question that we were going to administer that as a trust under the mandatory system. That was a fixed point in the earliest stages of the negotiations. There is no reason why we should not have done it. The delay of America had nothing to do with our failure to do it. On the contrary we should have made our position much clearer and much more intelligible to America if we had carried out our pledges from the very outset instead of wasting all this time. In my judgment we have done much to diminish our prestige by the course we have pursued in the East. We have incurred enormous expenses which might have been saved. We have done all this because there has been up to now, at any rate, no consistent and definite policy in the matter at all. We have just muddled along without any plan or policy to guide us. I hope profoundly
that my right hon. Friend's speech means that that period has come to an end and that the Government now have a definite policy, and will pursue it without flinching and without changing. I am afraid we shall never recover all we have lost during those two years, and in particular I am terribly afraid lest the people of this country, wearied with the delay and with the expense, and disgusted by the ineptitude of our policy, may decline to support what I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford is the right policy, namely, to carry through, as cheaply as possible, but to carry through the obligations which have been imposed upon us by the War.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: The record of the Government in the past in this region of the world is, I think, indefensible, and no one to-day has attempted to defend it. But I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Wedgwood) is perhaps not justified in representing the Opposition as having had a policy during those years which was a satisfactory alternative to the Government's policy. On the contrary, if we have not got peace in Asia Minor now, if there is a war between Greece and Turkey, and if that war has its repercussion, as we know from the right hon. Gentleman's speech it is bound to have, on Mesopotamia and Palestine—if that war is in progress, it is not due to this legendary love of His Majesty's Government or the Allies for M. Venezelos. That is pure legend. If Greek troops ever went to Smyrna it was solely because, when it was considered necessary by the Allies to occupy Smyrna, there were no allied troops to send there. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman might ask himself what attitude he took three years ago when the Secretary of State for the Colonies introduced the Military Service Act and whether, if he had then remembered what the right hon. Gentleman now says, that if you are to have peace with Turkey you must show adequate force, we should not have had peace with Turkey Very much sooner in spite of all that may be said about the Government's mistakes.
I should like to put one or two points, because I think there is a certain danger in eloquence, even such good eloquence as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) on this
question. As regards the League of Nations, let it be clearly understood that any obligation we undertake in Mesopotamia is not undertaken in pursuance of any pledge which we made in the Covenant of the League of Nations, for there is no such pledge. There is no reason in the Covenant why we should take up any particular kind of obligation in Mesopotamia or in Palestine. The Government itself has had the drafting of the mandate. It cannot say that any particular form of mandate has been imposed upon it, and the Committee will have to judge of it according as it is necessary to carry out the pledges which we gave to the inhabitants of Mesopotamia, and to the Jews in the case of Palestine, long before the League of Nations was ever invented. Let that be quite clear, because it puts a limit to our obligations. The second point is this: You are going to set up an independent autonomous Arab Government at Baghdad. There is going to be a High Commissioner, and the relations between His Majesty's Government and this autonomous Government are to be registered in a Treaty. That Treaty, again, has got to embody that restriction of our obligations which I have mentioned. We have been asked often not to fall into any of our old mistakes. Do not let us fall into the mistake into which we fell in Egypt. Do not let us appear to say to this autonomous Arab Government, by the form of the advice or assistance which we set up, that we are not responsible, that we are only advisers, and then be obliged to take the actual direct control under the camouflage of mere advice. That is what happened in Egypt. It happened inevitably, but by its very long continuance, by our neglect to clarify the constitutional position, we are involved in many of the troubles and the expenses which face us in Egypt to-day. Do not let us fall into the same mistake in Mesopotamia, and it is on that question of the actual exact constitutional relations which we are going to establish with the Arab Government that everything depends.
I should like to pass to Palestine, and to ask a question. The right hon. Gentleman has told us about the Arab levies in Mesopotamia, but he has told us nothing about a native defence force in Palestine. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite has mentioned the question of a purely Jewish defence force. I
think the Palestine Government has for some months past had a scheme for a defence force, which shall not be a "mixed" defence force, but shall contain distinct Arab and Jewish units used independently. I should very much like to know whether the Government have now authorised that scheme, which was a long time in suspense, and whether that defence force is in process of formation, and, if so, what is its strength, and what is its strength intended to be in the future. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke a little while ago was a little bit behind the times in what he said about British officials in Pales tine. It was probably true a year ago, or a little more, but I do not think there is any justification for any such suspicion about the present British civil administration in Palestine, which reaches a very high level of efficiency and of liberal open-mindedness and wisdom. The hon. and gallant Gentleman explained in his own words the reason for Arab violence. He said it arose by reason of the fact that Jewish immigration from Europe led to the announcement of Western trade union ideals and so on. That is perfectly true, but I think any trade union leader in this country would feel it a little bit dangerous, and probably not really useful in the long run, to make the same speech in Palestine at present which he might make on Labour Day in Hyde Park. There used to be an old story under the old Turkish régime—I am speaking of years before the War—that a good deal of the Christian persecution arose from the unfortunate habit of missionaries translating "Onward, Christian soldiers" into Turkish, and the Turkish Government was not perhaps to blame if they were a little bit doubtful as to the political implications of such a very militant hymn. That is, I think, what has been happening in Palestine. It is not only a question of lack of tact. It is a question of teaching the advanced views of advanced Western labour to a population still in a primitive stage of civilisation. The immigrants in Palestine have been very largely drawn from the professional classes and not from the labour classes. The wholesale accusations against recent Jewish immigration are absolutely baseless, but there has been an element whose views have been expressed in a form which has very justifiably alarmed the population.
There is no point on which the Committee has more cordially agreed with the right hon. Gentleman than that peace with Turkey is essential to the carrying out of his very risky policy in Mesopotamia, though, perhaps, it is a necessary one, and that the only way to get that peace is to have adequate force behind you. Elected as I was on pledges to cut down expenditure in every direction in the Middle East, and believing, as I always have done, in a very speedy withdrawal from Mesopotamia, and believing there is not a single selfish British interest which ought to keep us in Mesopotamia for a day, and that nothing but our obligations to the inhabitants ought to keep us there, I say that if the Government need more troops in order to ensure the conclusion of a lasting peace, I would, in the interests of economy, vote for a larger force than the right hon. Gentleman foreshadowed if it is necessary for the purpose of peace, because if there is any danger of making the mistake we made two years ago and denuding ourselves of force before we have concluded peace, I will be no party to the repetition of such a policy.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: After listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), I felt that we were even more justified in the position we take up, and which I myself have always taken up since I have had the honour of being a Member of this House, that we should withdraw from both Palestine and Mesopotamia. I first gave my view on that question in February, 1920. I asked the Government on that occasion to take no mandate for those countries, and to keep away from any expenditure that was unnecessary in those quarters. Our opposition to continuing in those two countries is on one ground, and one ground only, and that is that the country cannot afford it. There is no other ground whatsoever. We believe that the country's finances are in such a state, and the present conditions of the country are so abnormal, that we must take drastic measures, and before taking any measure we must cut down our—I do not like to call them adventures, but the mandates which we took over for Mesopotamia and Palestine. I think any Member of this House who studies the revenue returns of this year, or the trade returns month by month,
cannot but realise the serious state the country is in at the present time. I am not a little Englander, as one hon. Member called the movement with which I am associated. I have never been a little Englander, and I hope I never shall be. But I believe that this country and this Empire of ours can never exist unless we keep our financial resources and recuperate from the War.
The Secretary of State made one reference to us—I presume it was a reference, because it has been made in many quarters before—when he said that the British Empire was not made by negation or pessimism. I would like to remind him that the Roman Empire fell in great measure through taxation, and, first of all, the taxation of the middle-classes, so that when an emergency arose there were not the financial resources at hand. The same thing will happen to this country, unless we safeguard our financial resources, so that we have resources at hand if an emergency arises. I admit that the right hon. Gentleman is very clever and very diplomatic. He may for some months be able, to keep the peace in Mesopotamia, but he said he could not guarantee anything. I ask the Committee whether we are justified in passing this money when we have only the personal guarantee of the right hon. Gentleman's diplomacy and cleverness that there will not be any uprising in Mesopotamia as there was a short time ago? Again, if we rely on his personal cleverness and diplomacy, we have no guarantee that a new Secretary of State may not come along without the same diplomacy and cleverness of my right hon. Friend. We have to look at this in a far larger way than it has been looked upon in this Debate. It has been debated practically the whole time on technical issues. I do not pretend to be able to debate this matter on technical issues. I look at it purely from one point of view, and that is that we cannot afford this expenditure.

Earl WINTERTON: Moral obligations undertaken by you and your party.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Moral obligations are perfectly understood by this party, but I have the interest of the British Empire first at heart, and it is for that that I speak here at the present time.

Earl WINTERTON: Chucking away everything we won in the War!

Mr. HARMSWORTH: With regard to Palestine, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) made many references to the Zionist movement. He made a speech that is very typical of those fanatics who take much the same view. I do not pretend to be either a Zionist or an anti-Zionist. I have never thought about the Zionist movement before this country was intimately connected with it in the way it is at the present time, and I say that it is a mistake that the taxpayers of this country should be asked to pay for a national loan to the Jews. The Jews are a very wealthy class, and should pay for their own national home if they want it. I have never yet met one who would go and live there, but, if they want their national home, after all, they are the richest nation in the world, and let them pay for it. As representing a portion of the British taxpayers, I do protest most strongly that any money of theirs should be thrown away in Palestine to provide for that home. Holding these views, I shall vote against this sum of £27,000,000 to-night, because this country cannot afford it.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I venture to appeal to the Committee to allow us to have the Vote now. It is not our fault that we have not got an opportunity of debating this up till 11 o'clock, but I understand that it has been arranged, through those channels which are frequently called into requisition in these matters, that the Colonial Vote shall be put down again at an early date, that the first part shall be devoted to the same topic we have been discussing to-day, which will give an opportunity to Members who wish to take part in this Debate, and that then the ordinary regular Colonial Office discussion will be taken, perhaps about 6 or 7 o'clock, and the 11 o'clock Rule suspended up to 12 o'clock to enable a full Debate to take place on the various topics.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by £1,000,000.
If we give this Vote, there is no hope of moving a reduction in the future.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, on the salaries.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do want to protest against the way the discussion has been cut short. I admit that is not the Government's fault, but for so many months we have been refused any declaration of Government policy on this subject, that it is perfectly absurd for the right hon. Gentleman to ask for this money at a quarter past eight after a discussion in which the speeches have been particularly long, except that of my hon. Friend who has just sat down. It is all very well talking about obligations to be discharged. It seems to me that the only obligation we have in Mesopotamia is to set up an Arab State, and that is the one obligation we have so far not carried out. We have much greater obligations to our own people at home. We have already torn up pledges to the agriculturists and the unemployed of this country. The principal obligation in Mesopotamia is to set up an Arab State, and the sooner it is set up the sooner it will function. Once you create a vested interest in the Civil Service of Mesopotamia, as you are doing at present, you will never dislodge these persons, and the monstrous suggestion of giving a coupon to the Emir Feisal, and propping him up with British bayonets, will end as that sort of thing has always ended. As soon as your support is withdrawn, the fact that he is resting on foreign bayonets will lead to his downfall. By garrisoning these nations in Asia, we run the risk of going the way of the Roman Empire and other empires which have died by super-Imperialism. There is one bright spot I can see as the result of the War. The only good thing that has come out of the War is the carrying out of the Balfourian declaration as to Palestine, and I am delighted that there has been only one attack upon that. That is the one idealistic achievement of the War we have so far seen. There is a moral obligation, and it will be disastrous if we abandon it. I do not think the strategic aspect of this matter has been suggested. I quite agree we have no strategical interest in Mesopotamia. With regard to Palestine, if we really think it is necessary to take special steps to protect the Suez Canal, the question of Palestine is very essential from the strategical point of view. As to Mesopotamia and the subsidies, we simply cannot afford that. I therefore beg to move the reduction.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): If this Amendment goes to a Division, of course we cannot get the Vote to-night, and the whole arrangement falls to the ground.

Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: What is the good of making an arrangement? The hon. and gallant Gentleman's leaders have agreed to it.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: One is put in a very great difficulty, but in view of what the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. A. Henderson) has said, I shall have to withdraw my Amendment. Why cannot the Vote be put down next time? Why is it necessary to get this enormous sum of money to-night. We are being blackmailed into voting a sum of money which we cannot afford. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by £1,000,000.

It being a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

CROWN FORCES, BELFAST.

Mr. DEVLIN: I beg to move "That this House do now adjourn."
I do not think that I owe an apology to the House for taking advantage of the rule which permits us to discuss matters of most vital concern, not only to our constituents, but to public liberty, and even humanity. Perhaps there has been no record so ghastly as the story which I propose to submit to the House to-night. The condition of Ireland is exceedingly sad. We have witnessed in the supposed interests of law and order a policy of repression unparalleled in the history of violence, which has been pursued by the Government in order, as they state, to preserve law and order in that country. Yet I say, and I will prove it, that if there are to be found in any country in the world malefactors with the stigma of crime upon their record, they sit upon the Front Bench opposite. They are the responsible agents for cruelties perhaps as horrible as any that have ever been told in Armenia or in any other country
where horrors are perpetrated against the people. I am afraid that my statement this evening will be a very unimpassioned and cold narrative; but I hope that that will not rob it of interest, and that Members will not deny that it does not require violent rhetoric in order to impress the House with the horrors of the incidents which I am about to relate.
In the city of Belfast, during the last six months, we have been accustomed, among other things, to murders, Government murders, military murders, murders embellished with all the glory of authority, which are perhaps of as ghastly a character as ever were committed. On the 26th December, in the early hours of a Sunday morning, a number of armed men, uniformed, and wearing uniform caps, drew up to the house of a man named John Edward Trodden, in the Falls Road, and in the presence of his wife and children dragged him into the back yard and murdered him. They proceeded from the house of John Edward Trodden to the house of John Galer, of Springfield Road, forced their way into the house, and did this man to death in the presence of his aged mother. They then proceeded to the house of John McFadden, of Springfield Road, and murdered him. I raised the question of these murders in the House, and asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what was to be done to bring these cowardly midnight Sabbath assassins to justice, and he told me that these matters would be submitted to a tribunal which he would set up, I think a military tribunal of inquiry. I have no faith in a military tribunal. I have no faith in any of these inquiries; I do not believe in them. They are not established to hold the scales of justice even. They are not brought into existence for the purpose of seeing that these cowardly crimes are stopped, or the perpetrators punished. These tribunals are deliberately set up to cloak crime, and not to expose it or punish it. As I stated at the time, when the powers which the right hon. Gentleman sought to receive from this House were given to him, I have no confidence in these tribunals, and everything that I then said has proved true by all the circumstances that have followed.
From the day that I asked the question in regard to these cowardly midnight murders, I have never heard the result of the inquiries, except in one instance.
In the case of two of the murders the right hon. Gentleman said that he could not find out who had murdered the men; but in the case of the third, he said that the man was shot while attempting to escape arrest. This House is an intelligent assembly, at least I think it is, but I do not think anything has so degraded the majesty of Parliament, or has so lowered it in the eyes of all just men, as to find that horrors of this character can be committed, and not only is there not a blush of shame brought to the faces of the Parliament that allows the crimes to be committed, but they seem to pass as though they were one of the ordinary mundane incidents of our life. Imagine a man, shot at 1 o'clock in the morning attempting to escape from arrest; caught in a little humble cottage, of 3s. a week rent, trapped like a rat in the night, a motor lorry outside, with armed policemen, and this man was shot, and the military court of inquiry tells us that he was shot whilst escaping from arrest. The murders of the other men, about which the right hon. Gentleman said he knew nothing, took place on the same night, under the same circumstances, and by the same body of men, and consequent on the same organisation. From then to now there has not been a single word uttered, not a single apology made from the Government Bench. There has not been a single explanation given. No light has been thrown on this terrible transaction. The blood of the men rests upon those who have permitted this outrage to be committed upon absolutely innocent men, in the dead of night. Since the malefactors have escaped justice, their malefaction has continued. Therefore, I will proceed to the next record of their work.

Colonel ASHLEY: Why do you not condemn the murder of police in Belfast?

Mr. DEVLIN: Certainly I condemn all murders. To me, murder is horrible in any form. It hurts all causes; no good comes out of it. I have repeatedly said so. Do not let us obscure this matter. Does the hon. and gallant Member mean that because a policeman is murdered in one part of a city that you are entitled to carry murder into every peaceful part of that city?

Colonel ASHLEY: When the hon. Member brings up these cases of murder he should condemn all impartially.

Mr. SPEAKER: May I remind the House that we are here to discuss a definite matter, and we can only discuss a matter which has arisen quite recently. The hon. Member will recollect that he obtained leave to move the Adjournment on the incidents of Sunday morning last. I suppose that he is now leading up to them.

Mr. DEVLIN: I am leading up to them. I recognise the force of your ruling. I recognise also the sympathetic spirit in which you have permitted me to raise this question, though I say frankly that if I were an English Member and not an Irish Member at all I would rejoice at the opportunity that Parliament is afforded of expressing horror at transactions of this character, and I invite the hon. and gallant Gentleman, when I sit down, unless he believes that I have recited a series of statements which are not true, to join with me in condemning them. I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman who turns up the whites of his eyes in holy horror of what has happened elsewhere to join with me in demanding that this Government will not only condemn these transactions but will promise this House that they will take very vigorous means which the law can afford to bring to justice the men who are responsible for them. I come to the next case. On Sunday the 24th of April two young men, brothers, named Duffin were in the kitchen of their house some time after midnight. All the rest of the family had retired for the night. The noise of a passing lorry was heard. Shortly afterwards there was a knock. One of the brothers opened the door. Immediately the command "Hands up!" was given. Several shots were fired and the armed party then left.

Captain CRAIG: On a point of Order. May I draw attention to the fact that the hon. Member began his statement by referring to events which he says took place on the 26th of December last, and, disregarding your ruling, he is now proceeding to give us an account of happenings which took place on the 29th of April. I put it to you that, under the terms of the Motion to which he is supposed to be speaking, he is not entitled to review the whole course of events during the last six months, but ought to,
as you pointed out just now, confine himself strictly to what happened on last Sunday morning.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have already stated that I think that the hon. Member is not entitled to do more, in relation to the other incidents of which he has spoken, than merely enumerate them, should he wish so to do—to make his case with regard to what happened on Sunday morning last.

Mr. DEVLIN: That is my purpose. I am making merely a passing reference to these incidents.

Mr. MOSLEY: Let him go on.

Mr. J. JONES: Are you ashamed, or afraid to hear him?

Mr. DEVLIN: This is not the Ulster Parliament. There is still some decency left, I hope, in England. Anyone reading what occurred on last Sunday morning might think that these murders of peaceful inoffensive civilians by the representatives of the Crown were abnormal incidents, but they are only one of a series of murders, and my point is this, that when I raised in the House of Commons the first of these murders, and appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to take vigorous steps to deal with the men responsible for these assassinations, I got no satisfaction, and the result was that those murders were passed over, and the men responsible for them are still his servants, the servants of the Crown, and the subsequent incidents occurred because of the immunity of these assassins from justice, and the whole series of murders has been directly caused by the fact that no attempt has been made whereby the responsible Government authorities do deal with these assassinations. These two young men were in their home at night. All the rest of the family had gone to bed. There was a knock at the door. There was a command, "Hands up." Several shots were fired, it is believed by three men wearing trench coats. The people upstairs rushed down. Daniel Duffin had expired and Patrick was badly wounded and died in a few minutes. Patrick was 28, and was a national teacher, and Daniel was 24, and was formerly a temporary clerk at the Ministry of Labour in Belfast. It is stated that about 100 houses were searched, and arrests were made at night.
I do not know any of these men who were murdered, but as a representative of the city I have made inquiries and I found that these two Duffins were most exemplary young fellows and were a model of personal repute and character in the district in which they live. I have never heard anything alleged against them. Yet a little after midnight, on Sunday morning, these military forces, rampaging through the city of Belfast, go to their house and murder them in their own home. Not one solitary word of condemnation from the Government The Government goes livid with rage at every mention of a soldier or a policeman being killed in an ambush or some military attack, and not a single indication of regret is given to the citizens of Belfast or to the relatives of these murdered men or to anybody for this cruel outrage. Naturally, if no attempt is made to bring these men to justice, those who commit these crimes believe that they can continue them. That is the sum total of it. We have long got beyond the expectation of the right hon. Gentleman attempting to hold an even balance. I put a question to him to-day about these murderers and the two which I will recite to the House in a moment, and he talked about the disturbance, about riots, about stone throwing, about rivalry among sections of the people; and he referred to these murders in such a way as if they were something like a postscript of no consequence at all. May I point out that he sought the powers and got them from this House, which were never given to any Chief Secretary for Ireland in the long, chequered, bloody record of the British Government in Ireland. He got powers of so coercive a character that all the machinery of constitutional law disappeared, and there was no trial by jury and none of the ordinary machinery of justice in existence. Military tribunals were set up, and the Press were excluded if the tribunals so desired. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): They rarely desire it.

Mr. DEVLIN: If they desire it. I will tell him something further. If the military tribunal decides that there is certain evidence which should not be published the Press is not allowed to pub-
lish that evidence. That is not permitted in any other Court.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, it is.

Mr. SPEAKER: This is really irrelevant to the Motion. The hon. Member obtained leave to move the Adjournment on account of some alleged dereliction of duty on the part of the Executive with regard to incidents on Sunday morning last. His whole argument must be closely connected with that alleged negligence on the part of the Executive.

Mr. DEVLIN: With all respect that is the very thing I am commenting on. What greater dereliction of duty could there be than for the Chief Executive Officer of the Crown, the man who holds our fortune in his hands, to whom our bodies are entrusted, to allow these murders one after another to be committed and to make no attempt to bring the murderers to justice? The assassins are allowed to walk abroad by day and pursue their cause in the night? I come now to the incidents of Sunday. What happened on Sunday? Three citizens, Alexander M'Bride, a merchant, of 28, Cardigan Drive, Cliftonville Road; Malachy Halfpenny, a postman; and William Kerr, a hairdresser, were assassinated, and the incidents are coldly described as follows: In each case the victims were dragged out of their homes in a most callous and brutal fashion. They were taken out, clad in the scantiest clothing and hurriedly driven in a motor lorry to a scheduled spot, there to meet with a terrible fate, all of them being riddled with bullets. The districts in which these men lived were mostly at the northern end of the City, and it was apparent that the assassins were acting in concert and by a pre-arranged plan. Mr. M'Bride was a well-known merchant. He had a business in one of the principal streets and lived in a villa outside the City. He was taken half a mile away and shot. The second victim, Mr. Halfpenny, was an ex-soldier. He had resided on the Crumlin Road in what is called the Ardoyne district, and was killed a mile from his home. Mr. Kerr, a hairdresser, was taken two miles away and murdered.
I will tell the story recited by the first man's wife, Mrs. M'Bride. Mr. M'Bride lived in the villa with his wife and child. It was a very retired part of the city and a quiet spot. It was almost impossible to interview Mrs. M'Bride, who
was in a state of prostration, but after some difficulty she was able to give a story of what occurred. She says that about 1 o'clock she and Mr. M'Bride were awakened by a sharp knock at the door. Mr. M'Bride got out of bed, opened the window, and asked who was there. The reply was that they were the police, and that he must open the door. Mr. M'Bride went downstairs in night attire and opened the door, when the leader of the gang ordered him to go up and dress. He hastily donned a pair of trousers and boots when a couple of the raiders got hold of him roughly and said he would have to come with them. Mr. M'Bride asked to be allowed to see his baby, only a year old, and made an effort to approach the bed, but the men dragged him away. Mrs. M'Bride ran in between her husband and the raiders, but was thrown back, and her husband was taken out to a lorry. What subsequently happened can only be surmised, but it is possible to trace in the mind's eye the tragic incidents. The route taken by the lorry was via Old Park Road and Ballysillan Road. A visit to the exact spot revealed blood-soaked grass where apparently the body had lain for the few hours before it was discovered. The lorry must have come to a sudden stop a few yards away. The victim was then taken to a plot of grass in the lane, about ten years from Ballysillan Road, and done to death. Seven shots were fired at him: four bullets entered the head, and three the chest. Mr. M'Bride was a man of splendid physique, and I gather from the information I have received that he made a desperate struggle for life. On his body were marks as if he had been maltreated. A pair of rosary beads were entwined in his hands. The body was discovered at 4.30 in the morning, and the police at Ligoniel barracks having been apprised of the occurrence proceeded to the scene, and the body was removed to the morgue. Mr. M'Bride had been married over a year, and he had one child. His wife declares that he belonged to no political association of any sort.
I come now to the murder of the young man, William Kerr. It was of an equally atrocious character. His house is situated at the corner of California Street and Old Lodge Road. The assassins arrived at about twenty past 1 o'clock, about the same time as their arrival at the houses of Mr. M'Bride. I am going to charge
them with being concerned in concerted and preconceived plans by which they left wherever they came from at the same time, having marked out their victims, and proceeded in separate detachments to assassinate citizens in the dead of the night. A sister of this man Kerr, when interviewed, gave the following statement:
At about twenty past one she was awakened by a knock at the door. She opened the window and asked who was there. She was ordered to open the door. When she did so she was faced by a man wearing a tam o'shanter, who asked if William Kerr lived there. The girl said that he did, and that he was upstairs. The man went upstairs, followed by another man dressed in civilian clothes and wearing a cap and glasses. A third man had a kind of soldier's tunic. When my brother came downstairs he had only his shirt and trousers on and was carrying his boots in his hand. I asked them would they not take me instead of my brother, and they laughed and jeered at me. I said that if anything happened to my brother I would be able to identify them again, but they replied, 'You will not see your brother again.' He was dragged out into the street and put on a lorry. I rushed into the street and round the corner screaming, but was stopped by a man in a trench coat, who had a white handkerchief over his face. He put a revolver against me and said he would shoot me if I did not get back home. A little whippet dog that belonged to my brother ran after the lorry, but the men chased it back.
The finding of the body was due to an organised search party from the locality. Three of the party had been looking for Halfpenny, when they came upon the remains of Kerr, at 6.30, lying on the ground. One man said the appearance of the body would lead one to believe that the boy had made a struggle while being dragged to the spot, and he evidently had received terrible abuse. His scanty clothing was torn, his boots were unlaced, and there were seven bullet wounds in the body and limbs, two being over the heart, two on the throat, one on the side, one on the thigh, and one on the foot. One of his legs was doubled up under him and the body was covered with blood. During the removal of the body to the morgue a large number of people knelt and recited the rosary. The deceased was a member of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, of which I am President, and was a member of the Foresters. His brother is a regimental sergeant-major in the Machine Gun Corps in Mesopotamia, and was to have arrived home this week.
He himself, probably, was one of the soldiers who went out to fight in the War, on the appeal that I made to the Ancient Order of Hibernians and to other citizens who helped in that War, and were repaid in the form in which this man has been repaid.
Let me come to the third case, that of Malachy Halfpenny. He was unmarried and lived with his mother and two sisters, and the circumstances in which he met his death are much the same as those of the other two men. Armed men numbering about 14 or 15 arrived at the house in what was described by neighbours as a blue-gray motor lorry about 1.15 a.m., which is within the curfew hours when no civilian is allowed to walk the streets. One of the men knocked at the door, and deceased's mother went to the window and asked if they were the military. She received no reply to the question, but was ordered to open the door. This she did, and one of the men came into the house and asked if that was where Halfpenny lived, and she replied in the affirmative. Others came into the house and rushed past Mrs. Halfpenny upstairs to deceased's bedroom where he was asleep. They dragged him out and down the stairs in his night attire. He asked the men to let him put on some clothes, but they refused. The mother and sister rushed between the men and their victim. One of the men produced a revolver and threatened to shoot both mother and sister. The family appealed to the men to release deceased, but in vain. The deceased man resisted, and it was stated his arms were twisted as he was dragged to the motor. He was put into the motor which drove off, and the people in the street heard shots a few minutes afterwards. The family were distracted, and they entertained the worst fears, and after curfew hours a search was made. Even the neighbours of this man who watched this ghastly tragedy, who were the witnesses of this spectacle of the glory of your rule, were not permitted to go out during curfew hours to try and get the remains of this poor murdered lad—an ex-soldier—who was dragged out by your servants and murdered in this cruel and merciless fashion. Who was this young boy? He was a young fellow like the others, in the prime and fulness and glory and flower of youth. I will give you his record. He was 22 years of age and he served for 3½ years in the
Army with the Royal Field Artillery. He joined the Army when he was 16½ years of age, and he served in France.

Mr. J. JONES: The dirty dogs!

Mr. DEVLIN: He was twice gassed, and on being demobilised he returned to the General Post Office, where he was a postman. Four brothers of his have served or are serving in your Army. One of them was killed in France on the same date and at the very spot where my lamented colleague, Major William Redmond, lost his life, and the other three brothers also fought in France and were also wounded. This is the boy, who in the dead of night, in the name of British law, with your authority, in pursuance of your policy, and for the preservation of order as we understand it in modern conditions, was put to death. There was the end of this young and inspiring career. This poor lad did not know what the pleasures of youth were, for he spent the most glorious days of his young life fighting your battles in France, and he died your victim in the presence of his mother and his sisters. That is the British rule we are called upon to respect and in honour of which we are asked to sing "Rule Britannia" upon every platform in these islands.

Major PRESCOTT: Does the hon. Member seriously ask the House to believe that servants of the Crown have put an end to such a life at that?

HON MEMBERS: Yes, yes!

Mr. D. HERBERT: Will the hon. Member prove that statement?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has obtained liberty to make a statement. I would ask other hon. Members to let him make his statement, and anything they have to say regarding it can be said after he has finished.

Mr. DEVLIN: We are not children. Does the hon. Member who interrupted me think there is any other conclusion to be drawn from the taking out of three separate motor cars or lorries on a Sabbath morning at an hour after midnight?

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: After curfew hour.

Mr. DEVLIN: The hon. Member (Major Prescott) perhaps does not know what curfew means. I shall tell him. I
am always anxious to enlighten Englishmen about Ireland. After half-past 10 o'clock at night, no civilian can walk the streets of Belfast; no motor car is allowed to go through the streets of Belfast, and the city is like a city of the dead. Who was it, if it was not the forces of the Crown, who were able to rampage over the whole city at 1 o'clock in the morning, to stop at three different and distinct houses, to take these three men out from their families, bring them to lonely roads, assassinate them and leave them there dead, only to be found when the curfew was over in the morning? Who does he think did it?

Mr. O'CONNOR: Who could do it?

Mr. DEVLIN: I am ready for enlightenment. I wanted to be enlightened before, when the first atrocities were committed nine months ago, and I brought the question before the House. I then invited the right hon. Gentleman to give us an impartial court of inquiry to probe this thing to the bottom, to let us see there was not one law for one set of assassins and another law for another set. I asked him, "If you come to this House, come to it with clean hands," and if the right hon. Gentleman had given me what I asked for then, and if this matter had been probed to the bottom, as I wanted it to be, we perhaps would have avoided the scene and the circumstances I am dealing with. Remember, the scene and the circumstances will be told all round the world, wherever the English language is spoken and in countries where it is not spoken. People will say, "What about Ireland?" and you will tell them, "They are an unruly people, an impossible people; you cannot satisfy them, you can concede nothing to them, and they are hopeless." The reply to that will be, "Did you take out a young fellow of 22, who had spent the golden years of his life fighting your battles in France and Flanders, and do him to death—you or your agents? "There can be no camouflage in replying to that question. It will be so powerful an indictment of your policy and your rule of Ireland that I venture to say that if nothing else brings blushes to your faces, surely a transaction of this character will.
What is my case? My case is that on three different occasions innocent men have been either taken out of their homes
and shot, or else shot in their homes, by forces of the Crown, and there never has been the slightest attempt to bring the perpetrators to justice. An hon. Member opposite raised a point of Order that I was departing from your ruling, Mr. Speaker, when I mentioned the powers given by the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act. If these men were guilty of any crime, surely with all this, machinery they could be brought to justice. You have never allowed anyone to slip through your fingers. Many an innocent man has been brought before these tribunals with hardly a scintilla of evidence to convict him. You were always sure of your convictions. Therefore if these particular men, or any of them were guilty of any crime, you had not to submit them to a jury of their countrymen, you had not to pursue them by the ordinary constitutional methods and machinery observed in every country except Ireland. You could have brought them before the military tribunal, strengthened by all these powers, and you could have tried them and have found them guilty. I do not suppose any allegations were brought against them. If this young fellow of 22, this ex-soldier who joined at 16½ years, did join the Sinn Fein or Republican Army—I do not know whether he did or not; there is no allegation that he did, and as a matter of fact, I think it is stated that he belonged to the organisation to which I am attached—but supposing he did, what a commentary on your rule. Countless ex-soldiers who went out and fought with superb courage, men of the 16th Division, who played a magnificent and gallant and fruitful part in that War, have come back and joined the Sinn Fein movement, because you have driven them into it, as you have driven those of us who are not soldiers, but mere politicians, to exasperation and despair by all these things that are being done in Ireland.
9.0 P.M.
If you could justify them by the success of your policy, something might be said for them, but what a drama could be written on the story of this boy, if it were true, who joined your forces at 16½ to fight for your Empire, and all the causes which the Empire claimed to stand for then, and who came back and saw his country as we all see it to-day, distracted, disorganised, oppressed, without the semblance of liberty or freedom,
individual or public, anywhere, what a drama could be written and what a story could be told of the ignorance and malignity of a policy which you have forced down the throats of an England chloroformed, for nothing but an England chloroformed would tolerate the things that are being done in Ireland to-day. I understand the right hon. Gentleman stated in the House of Commons yesterday or the day before that he intended to put a stop to reprisals. Is this the first instance of it? The right hon. Gentleman will permit me to say that he suffers largely from what I might call intellectual self-conceit. He has formed the opinion that to think he will do a thing is nearly that he does it, but I wonder in his heart if he is satisfied with this policy. Six months ago he was to kill the murder gang, and at the end of it all I am here to expose a fresh murder gang, a murder gang with motor cars, a murder gang with authority, a murder gang after curfew, a murder gang free to play its part in whatever way it may, with these horrible and tragic results on the lives of innocent citizens in the dead of night. Is that the end of the policy? No good man, whether he be a politician or an ordinary citizen, need ever be ashamed to admit that he is wrong, and I invite the right hon. Gentleman to admit that this policy is wrong, that this country, for the government of which he is responsible, is at this moment simply a reservoir of blood and tears, a Saturnalia of assassination—

Sir W. LANE-MITCHELL: What about the Sinn Feiners?

Mr. DEVLIN: When I have done, if you have any intelligence you will get up and answer, but I have never known the hon. Gentleman yet to rise up and speak intelligently. He tries to do it without rising, but he cannot. If I were in his position, I would be glad to have these things exposed that they might be ended.

Sir W. LANE-MITCHELL: We are not so eloquent.

Mr. DEVLIN: You need not be eloquent if you are human. It does not require rhetoric to recognise the fundamental truths of the Ten Commandants, but being a, Tory and a seasoned reactionary you do
not understand. I understand that the only time the hon. Member was eloquent was when he was pronouncing in fierce form the glories of President Wilson's 14 points during the War.

Mr. J. JONES: And the Excess Profits Duty.

Mr. DEVLIN: No, this policy has absolutely failed. It has done nothing but the things I have described to the House, and was there ever such a story told in a civilised or Christian community? This thing is going on from day to day, and you are getting no nearer to a solution of this Irish problem. You will have to stop it, but in the meantime the public conscience in England, and the public opinion in Ireland if it counted at all, demands that the right hon. Gentleman will give some explanation to the House of the horrors which I have ventured to bring before it to-night.

Mr. STURROCK: I listened to my hon. Friend in the indictment, as he considers it to be, which he has laid at the door of the Chief Secretary, but having listened to many similar discussions in this House on previous occasions, I suggest to hon. Members in all parts of the House that there is exceedingly little to be gained by the sort of charges which my hon. Friend has just made. He has told us a very tragic story, which, if it were true, would be heart-rending, but how many stories are there from every part of Ireland which could engage the attention of the House all hours of the day and night, if they were given to us with the rhetorical effect which my hon. Friend knows so well how to employ? It is very sad indeed to think that a youth who entered the British Army at the age of 16½ years should be murdered or killed in some form at the age of 22, but really, it does not sound to me convincing as a damning proof that the Government of Ireland in all its Departments is thoroughly bad. There have been men killed in this country who served during the War, and countless numbers of men who have done great service, both in the Army and in the public life of this country, who have been foully murdered in Ireland, and if my hon. Friend wishes to he judicial in this matter and not merely to score points on particular cases, he should appeal to his own fellow countrymen to bring an end to this sort of campaign of murder and counter-murder, which is a matter affecting Irish-
men and Irishmen only. My hon. Friend comes to this House and endeavours by attacking the Chief Secretary to attack not only the Chief Secretary but the English and the Scottish Members of this House, suggesting that we are always to blame for these things which are going on. I repudiate the doctrine out and out. It is evident that he and those who sympathise with him in this House would be far better engaged in trying to curb the passions that have arisen in Ireland instead of fanning them and fomenting them in this House.

Mr. MOSLEY: Have an inquiry.

Mr. STURROCK: The difficulty in all these inquiries is that, owing to the Sinn Fein terror, it is impossible to have impartial inquiry. My hon. Friend talked about an England which was chloroformed, but that was merely another rhetorical touch. The hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) is a new Member, and he has taken up a case in regard to which the more I heard him develop it the more firmly I am convinced that he does not half understand it. I have been in many parts of England and Scotland in recent times, and I feel that there is this to be said, that people who are maintaining a calm view of affairs in Ireland are supremely disgusted with the action of Irishmen in Ireland, although I know the people of England and Scotland would do anything to secure an improvement in the conditions in Ireland. When, however, it is suggested here that this country is apathetic because it supports a Government—

Mr. MOSLEY: It does not support the Government.

Mr. STURROCK: Hon. Members are urging that this is a Government which is pursuing a malicious policy in Ireland against the best interests of Ireland, but I say that that is not so. The country as a whole is sick to death of the behaviour of Irishmen in Ireland, and it does not attribute one iota of the blame to the Government. Hon. Members who support the so-called Independent Labour party should realise that all those who have been in politics, not only in this Parliament but in previous Parliaments, are every whit as much to blame as the present Government. It is all very well to keep raising these matters time after time and stating all these harrowing
details and I confess that such speeches do very little good. I appeal to the hon. Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin) and his colleagues to use their influence not in order to make political points in this House or in the country on the affairs of Ireland but to use their influence with their own fellow countrymen. Now that Irishmen have their own Parliamentary procedure at work I ask hon. Members representing Ireland to restrain the people from carrying on a campaign which is a disgrace to the country concerned, and which cannot in any sense be attributed to the Chief Secretary or the Government. As for an inquiry into all these cases, whenever an inquiry can be held where the evidence will be truthfully given, let it be held. I am quite sure the Chief Secretary would be the first to welcome every opportunity of vindicating his policy in every part of Ireland.

Sir C. TOWNSHEND: I have heard several Debates on Ireland in this House, and I say as an Englishman that I feel tremendously the state of things going on in Ireland, and I would like to give to the House what a student of history and a soldier thinks of the situation. I will say straight away that I agree with the hon. Member behind me, that this kind of thing must be stopped, but we have to stop the rebellion first, because that is civil war. Personally, I am astonished at the moderation of the Government in this matter. I admire the Chief Secretary's resolution and his tenacity in sticking to the most difficult and awful task a Minister can have to carry out, that is enforcing vigorous methods against a people one loves. Many Irish soldiers served in my command during the War, and I loved them.
These things having arisen in Ireland, who can we blame? We all remember the Rebellion of Vinegar Hill when the same thing occurred as that which is occurring to-day. I have been astonished at the moderation which has been shown in this matter, because it is civil war, in which we know the most dreadful things must occur. You cannot help reprisals. I am sure hon. Members must have been deeply affected by the story told by the Chief Secretary the other day about the murder of Colonel Compton Smith, because it was a most touching story. I have no feeling in the matter, except that it is
dreadful, and I would give anything to stop that kind of thing. Were I sent to stop this kind of thing, I should try to do it, although I dare say you might be ready to execute me afterwards, but I should do far worse things than the Government are doing, and, probably, I should be brought to the Bar of the House.
I will put in a few sentences what I should do to suppress civil war in Ireland. The first thing I should do would be to proclaim martial law all over Ireland. Secondly, I should give General Macready another 20,000 men because 60,000 is not enough. Thirdly, you must carry out the principle of economy, which is not being carried out now. Fourthly, the police and the Army must be under one command. You must trust the Commander-in-Chief. He represents your power in Ireland. The Commander-in-Chief must be supreme and the civil government had better stand down till the business is over. I should have four military commands in Ireland, one in Ulster, one in Munster, one in Leinster and one in Connaught, each with a general responsible for the province and with an adequate force worked by wire from Dublin. If one of these generals found his neighbour in trouble, then he marches down to the assistance of General Jones in the province on his border. He will endeavour to do the best that can be done somehow or another. If I were there I might have to stand my trial afterwards, but I would have to chance that, and to my mind that is the only way we can have peace in Ireland. [Interruption.] Such a way would be short, but it would be merciful in the long run compared with what is going on now.

Mr. LAWSON: You would never get a British Army to do it.

Sir C. TOWNSHEND: I am astonished at the moderation of the Chief Secretary, to whom I would like to pay my tribute for having done the best he could.

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps I may be allowed again to remind hon. Members that we are getting a long way away from the point at issue, which was to bring to the notice of the Executive a certain alleged dereliction of duty in regard co things that happened on Sunday morning last.

Mr. MOSLEY: I trust that I shall keep within the ambit of your ruling, Mr. Speaker. While I disagree largely with the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just eat down. I think he did not even achieve his ambition. He desired to be far worse than the Government and to transcend the iniquities of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. In the programme which he sketched to the House he fell lamentably short of his ideal. My hon. and gallant Friend was merely modelling himself upon the high command behind the lines in the recent War. The iniquities of the Chief Secretary for Ireland far transcend, far surpass—[Laughter]—Hon. Members may laugh, but remarks of this kind have been justified, I venture to suggest, in the course of Debates in this House. A military repression carried out under proper discipline and under the recognised laws of a martial régime is understandable, and has often happened, not only in the history of the world but in the history of this country. What, however, has not happened before has been the organisation of a privy murder gang working at night under the auspices of His Majesty's Government. That is the unprecedent situation with which we are faced in Ireland to-day. Those are facts which cannot be refuted, facts which the right hon. Gentleman dare not take before a judicial impartial inquiry conducted by judges of that English Crown. These are facts which he has been forced to acknowledge, and which have been extracted reluctantly from the Government Bench in Debates in this House. These are facts which cannot be repudiated by an impartial and just investigation. [An HON. MEMBER: "Liar!"] We find hon. Gentlemen supporting the Government through fair and foul weather. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Leng Sturrock) who to-night endeavoured to refute some of my arguments in advance to me as a young Member. May I remind him in passing that some time ago another Member of this House had to meet a similar charge, but his remarks were subsequently justified. The same charge had been made, and in reply it was pointed out that age was not necessarily an asset even to an hon. Member's politics, for in certain cases the passage of years merely added the quality of obstinacy to that of stupidity; in some cases the advance of time was merely marked by the recession from virtue. Surely these re-
marks are peculiarly applicable in this case, when we find that hon. Members come down to this House and justify the crimes of the agents of the English Crown by reciting the crimes of the Sinn Fein murder gangs as their only justification, but two blacks do not make a white, and Sinn Fein murders do not justify others in saying, "Let us go out and murder."
What is this new philosophy in our Imperial tradition? Wherever a band of assassins may make murder by night is our only remedy not to bring them to justice in the time-honoured fashion, but ourselves to go out and do likewise, and emulate them by a murder gang working under the auspices and instigation of His Majesty's Government? The right hon. Gentleman opposite may think to shelve responsibility for these incidents by speaking of spontaneous outbursts of fury. He may think that he will in the end escape facing that Tribunal which I hope and believe he will face one day; but let him remember that a greater man than the Chief Secretary for Ireland faced a tribunal of his countrymen for lesser crimes than the crime. I refer to Warren Hastings. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but there are some who come down to this House for the purpose of taking part in a reasonable discussion.

Mr. D. HERBERT: Listen to the rot!

Mr. MOSLEY: I know there are hon. Members who come down to the House not to take part in a reasoned discussion, but to howl down other hon. Members, but may I remind Conservatives who take part in those exhibitions that Disraeli, their great leader, in one of his greatest speeches, told us that "The system that cannot bear discussion is doomed." Advice from a statesman whose doctrines are destined to perpetual life on the lips of Conservatism in default of that improbable phenomenon—a new idea. Such a remark is peculiarly applicable to the present situation. Great causes were never drowned beneath the jeers of partisans. This cause will survive the laughter and mockery of hon. Members who troop into the House from the Smoke Room to howl down anyone—

Mr. STANTON: From where did you come?

Mr. MOSLEY: I did not intend to transgress your ruling, Mr. Speaker, as I feel I have in the remarks I have made in reply to the observations of hon. Members. What have we in this particular case? We have a repetition of incidents which, as my hon. Friend has described, have constantly occurred in Ireland during the last nine months or more. In the middle of the night, when a strict curfew prevents, or should prevent—if it does not prevent it is entirely due to the incompetence of the right hon. Gentleman's administration—the passage of any man or vehicles through the streets other than those of the forces of the Crown, we have atrocities of the kind described by my hon. Friend (Mr. Devlin) this evening. The Chief Secretary, I have no doubt, is about to get up and deplore the crime, but at the same time to confess entire ignorance of its perpetrators, as he did at Question Time this afternoon. He has a stereotyped answer in cases of this kind, and it is one that we expect to-night. Let him answer this question, put to him already: If it was not his agent, who did it, or who can have done it? What else does he expect? For months past, although I know it has now been checked, "Weekly Summaries," and other literature has been circulated to these unfortunate irregulars, who are organised in haphazard fashion and despatched without any organisation to Ireland, which constitutes an absolute incitement to murder. [HON. MEMBERS; "Oh, oh!"]

Mr. D. HERBERT: Prove it.

Mr. MOSLEY: Fortunately, sufficient copies of the "Weekly Summary" still survive to prove it.

Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member justified in imputing to the Government a charge of circulating literature which incites to murder? [HON. MEMBERS: "Is it true!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: It is necessary to remind hon. Members that we come here to hear two sides of a question, otherwise we need not come at all. Hon. Members must be good enough to listen. We are not asked to accept the statements made on this side or the other. It is only by hearing the opposite view that we hope some day to arrive at the truth.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am not in anyway objecting to hearing the opposite view,
but the hon. Member does not present a particular case—

Mr. MOSLEY: I am going to do so, if you will allow me.

Sir F. BANBURY: He merely accuses the right hon. Gentleman of circulating literature which incites to murder.

Mr. SPEAKER: That, of course, is a matter of opinion. There may be one opinion on this side, and another on that I do not think it is out of Order. There have been occasions when the hon. Baronet has made very severe comments.

Mr. MOSLEY: The hon. Baronet was so eager to prevent the utterance of my arguments that he did not allow me to supply incidents which have been reiterated over and over again in this House, and which it is scarcely necessary to repeat.

Mr. HERBERT: That does not make them true.

Mr. MOSLEY: Take No. 11 of the "Weekly Summary." That publication, published under the auspices of the Chief Secretary and paid for out of public funds, reproduces a manifesto issued by an Anti-Sinn Fein Society in Cork, to the effect that for every policeman or Loyalist who was murdered three Sinn Feiners would be murdered. Quotations of that sort—it is never done in a direct way—from the manifesto of a murder gang, from the more inflammatory and ill-balanced section of the Press, appeared weekly in the "Weekly Summary." I reiterate the charge that that document—before it was exposed in this House and the right hon. Gentleman found it convenient to lose the first thirteen numbers—in its earlier stages, every week incited these irregular forces of the Crown to commit murder. It constitutes one of the most damning links in the chain of evidence which history will record against this Government, demonstrating conclusively to future generations, if not to the present, that they have been guilty of organising to commit political murder.
If further proof were required—I am not going into details, but broad outlines—this is not the first incident of the kind which has engaged the attention of the House. Take the incident three weeks before the Prime- Minister went to Carnarvon and made his famous speech de-
fending in their entirety the actions of the Crown, condoning reprisals, and encouraging the irregular forces to go on and do it again. What happened? In the middle of the night two men were dragged out of their beds in Balbriggan—that is on the admission of the right hon. Gentleman—and after being kept for some hours were butchered in cold blood, but not one man connected with that transaction was brought to justice. Three weeks after this the Prime Minister goes down to Carnarvon and describes reprisals as the scene in which the troops came round a corner in a secluded lane and found their comrades' dead bodies on the road and men standing over them with smoking revolvers. A direct misrepresentation of facts. These are very different circumstances. Twenty-four hours after the outrage they go to a village, which has had nothing to do with it, drag out two men who had nothing to do with the murder, sack the village, burn the houses, and drive women and children into the fields, with the result that four little children with measles and two women died.

Mr. SPEAKER: I would beg the hon. and gallant Gentleman to come to the particular case, otherwise we shall lose ourselves in generalities. The purpose of this Debate is to bring the Government to answér a specific charge, definite and immediately arising. If the hon. Gentleman confine himself to generalities, it will be very imperfect.

Mr. MOSLEY: I apologise, Sir. I was merely trying to point out that this is not the first instance of the kind which has been brought to the notice of the Government; that it was the failure of the right hon. Gentleman on a previous occasion to punish the perpetrators of the outrages; that it was this inflammatory literature, inciting to murder, that was responsible in the first place; that it was his speeches, and those of the Prime Minister condoning the action of these men that were responsible. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has once again to meet a charge with which he is familiar, a charge which he will meet in his accustomed manner, a charge which he will refuse once again to bring before an impartial tribunal. It is a charge which merits, if ever a charge merited, an impartial tribunal composed of judges of the English Crown. The right hon. Gentleman, I am afraid, will
once again refuse that tribunal He now claims that he has stopped the system which he instituted. I was tempted to wonder whether this change of policy was due to the failure of the programme or to some belated acquisition of elementary Governmental morality. I fear it must be ascribed to the former rather than the latter cause. The trouble is that when once you set a ball of this sort rolling you cannot stop it when you may think fit. When once you have started to debauch the discipline of an organised force, when once you have issued literature of this sort, when once you have encouraged crime and murder you cannot call a halt whenever your policy fails or when the will moves you. The right hon. Gentleman is being overwhelmed by the system which he initiated, and incidents of this kind will multiply and continue till he and his administration are dismissed and brought to the bar of justice, which I for one trust they will be.

Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: As an Irishman I wish, as calmly as I can under the circumstances, and without any passion, to say in all truth and sincerity that the speech we have just listened to is one of the type which has done more to encourage lawlessness than—

Mr. J. JONES: How about the murders on your own side?

Mr. SPEAKER: Unless the hon. Member restrain himself, I shall have to ask him to remove himself from the House. I must ask him not to make interjections during hon. Members' speeches.

Mr. JONES: What about the other interjections which were made before I spoke?

Mr. SPEAKER: Two blacks do not make one white.

Mr. JONES: Why should I be picked out, then?

Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: I have sat throughout this debate and have not made one interjection in any of the speeches. I desire to emphasise what I have said in relation to the speech of the hon. Member. He seems to understand so little of the Irish question and so little of the difficulties of the Chief Secretary; he seems to realise so little the responsibility attached to the Government of Ireland that he makes this kind of speech, and though his speeches may not carry with them great weight in this House, although
he may not be a known politician throughout the United Kingdom, yet the speeches are reported in the Press and I have no doubt whatever that when Sinn Fein reads the one he has just delivered it will be encouraged to go on with its record of abominable crime and murder. I agree with the hon. Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin) that the condition of Ireland is lamentable indeed, but here again I submit it is hardly fair to submit that the Government are responsible for the condition of things instanced by what happened on Sunday morning last. If we are not to obscure the facts, we must begin at the beginning. I have no intention of going over the history of what has led up to the present condition in Ireland, but it is only right that the House should bear in mind the fearful provocation that has been given to everyone who has lived in Ireland since 1916. Ireland is a country which those who live in it love with a passionate devotion. Personally I abominate these Debates upon Ireland, but I believe the hon. Member for the Falls Division is sincerely of opinion that he is doing his duty by Ireland and by his constituents in raising them here. Let us remember that for a year the policy of murder and crime has been proceeding in Ireland with a definite purpose of establishing an Irish Republican Government. I have not the slightest intention of dealing with that subject in this very limited Debate, but when hon. Members quote instances which they say deliberately are a result of reprisals and of the conduct of the Government of Ireland by the Chief Secretary, I submit that it is only fair that they should be asked at some time, if not on this occasion, to devote some of their speeches to considering the actions of the criminals and murderers who belong to the Irish Republican Army. It is exactly because they do not do that, but devote themselves chiefly to referring to what they say are the crimes of the forces of the Crown, that I find fault with them. They devote too little attention to the murders by the Irish Republican Army of His Majesty's troops, and it is not too much to ask of Englishmen who speak on the question of Ireland and its condition at the present moment, that they should adopt that course.
May I refer to one or two instances which do not go any further back than
those quoted by the hon. Member for the Falls Division? Here is one that happened two days ago. According to the official report, a shoemaker was taken from his home by a party of armed and masked men, he was conducted a short distance outside the village and there his dead body was found, his hands and feet being tied, his head bandaged and his body riddled with bullets. Upon him was pinned a card bearing the words, "Shot by the I.R.A. Spies beware. This body is not to be touched." This man was a widower and he leaves five children. I could believe in the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken if, in addition to the foul cases he mentioned, he would take up a case like this. I will give another, which is only recent:
A sensation was caused in Mullingar yesterday when it was learned that an ambulance had arrived with the remains of Head Constable McElhill, of Kilbeggan, who, it had been reported, had been shot that morning. It appears from the correspondent of this paper that the head con-table was hit in six places, including the leg, chest and back of the head. He lived between one and two hours. Deceased was a native of County Tyrone, and had 33 years' service.
That is the case of a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary. I would like, as I have said, some hon. Members to take up the cudgels on behalf of these gallant men. I will quote just one other instance, which happened on the same day as the events to which the hon. Member for Falls has referred, and on which he has based his Motion:
The Very Reverend James Finlay, M.A., of Bawnboy, County Cavan, was taken from his house late on Saturday night or early on Sunday morning, and foully murdered. The reverend gentleman, who was about 80 years of age, and resided at Brackley House, on answering a knock at his door, was confronted by a number of armed men, who, without any parley whatever, removed him to the front of his residence, shot him, and then battered his head almost to pulp. They then set fire to the beautiful house, and it was soon reduced to ruins.
An old clergyman, 80 years of age, was taken from his house, shot, and battered to death, and yet, in the hon. Members' speeches there is not a word of it. What are we to think of English Members of this House who deliberately take up the position of condemnation of the Government and the Chief Secretary for the reprisals which may happen as a result of such unpardonable crimes? These Debates always seem to be to run in
exactly the same direction, and they always seem to be without practical result, except the encouragement of these men who continue these crimes. That is the only practical result. As we know perfectly well, as hon. Members know, and as the world knows, if Sinn Fein stopped crime to-morrow, it would be the end of crime in Ireland. Let us then, every one of us, use our influence to that extent. I do not know if there is any possibility of anything happening between the Northern and the Southern Parliaments, or between those who are responsible for the establishment of those Parliaments, but I will say this, that questions asked in this House, and Debates like this, are going a long way to postpone the eventual settlement of affairs in Ireland. I do not know what may happen in the near future, but if all the Members of this House would conspire to keep quiet and not put these questions from day to day in triplets concerning what is happening in Ireland, which bear the impression of coming from Sinn Fein sources—if all this were to cease for a month, I believe we should see a very different Ireland. I would beg all those who, I believe, at heart wish to see Ireland peaceful once again, to act together in this matter, and to give the Chief Secretary and the Government a chance to quell all these things that have been mentioned by the hon. Member for Falls.
The hon. and gallant Member for the Wrekin (Sir C. Townshend) stated his idea of the way in which the Government could settle these difficulties, but how litle does he understand the position of affairs in Ireland. He may take his troops from Munster into Leinster, and when he has passed out of Munster into Leinster, some of these murderers will come behind and take a farmer out of his home and murder him in cold blood. How is that to be stopped by moving troops? The hon. and gallant Member does not seem to appreciate the difficulties of the Government or of the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland. It may be that unification of command will help to solve the difficulty to some extent, but the first and the only thing, in my opinion, that will give a solution, is that Sinn Fein should stop its activities once and for all. I should not be surprised, however, if the individual who was responsible for these outbreaks at the
beginning is no longer capable of restraining the force he has set up. In this difficult task which the Government have undertaken, I believe that they and the Chief Secretary deserve the sympathy, the support, and the help of every man who deserves to be called British, to enable them to carry to a successful issue the settlement of Ireland in its pristine condition. I do beg hon. Members of this House, as an Irishman who loves his country, to help us by not asking these questions and not making these speeches, which are an encouragement to these criminals.
The hon. Member for Falls referred to the magnificent service of the 16th Division. I saw its work myself, and I remember that at the Battle of Messines the 36th, that is the Ulster Division, and the 16th were side by side, and all that they thought of then was who should be the first to reach their objective. It is that spirit that we want in Ireland now; it is not these divisions, these pin-pricks in the form of questions, and so on. I remember that when the hon. and gallant relative of the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford passed away after that battle, in the casualty clearing station of our Division, the padre of our Division said to me afterwards that the only words he uttered during all those hours were, "I am tired." I wonder what he was tired of? Perhaps, as sometimes happens, a panorama of what had happened during his life passed before his mind, and he was tired, perhaps, because, after all he had done and after all his service for his country, this horrible thing was rising up in his country. This dragon of murder was rearing its head and he saw it. I beseech hon. Members to assist us in all ways they can, particularly by the cessation of these questions and speeches, which are a disturbing element to the Celtic blood in Ireland. They can do it, and I appeal to them to do it. This orgy of crime is going on. It seems to be getting worse, and hon. Members opposite are not assisting us, they are not assisting the Chief Secretary and they are not assisting the Government. I beg them to do what they can to assist us in order that our distressful country may recover. If those who are responsible in Southern Ireland would but take the reins of government in their hands, who knows but eventually, with those
who may be elected to combine the two Parliaments, we may work together hand in hand for the good of our country. There are capacities in Ireland yet untouched. I believe there are in Ireland unbounded sources of wealth and progress. I appeal even, if my voice reaches that far, to those whose hands are stained with murder to stop this murder and to get on to the business of governing their country. Then and only then we shall have peace and prosperity.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has occupied a good deal of his speech in appealing to us on this side of the House. If we could have entered into the spirit of his speech we could have done so more fully if he had left it free of the charge that he also preferred against us. More than once he suggested that we share a great measure of responsibility for the conditions now obtaining. He also suggested that whilst we were ever ready to raise cases similar to those which have been brought before the House by the hon. Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin) we were not prepared to enter into a condemnation of the murders which are being perpetrated by Sinn Feiners. Once again I repudiate that suggestion.

Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: I admitted that hon. Members condemned murder in a general way where and when it took place, and the right hon. Gentleman is hardly doing me justice when he says I did not. But I said they do not spend very much of their time and opportunities in doing it.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. HENDERSON: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had given me the opportunity, as I gave him the opportunity, of completing my speech without interruption, he would have found that I was going on to say that not only did I condemn murder in a general way, but I had never delivered a speech on the Irish question in this House or out of it in which I had not condemned the murders for which Sinn Fein or those associated with Sinn Fein were responsible. But in the whole of his speech the hon. and gallant Gentleman never came to the crux of the case that is before the House. Instead of lecturing us, it was surely important that everyone who spoke should especially call attention to the responsibility resting upon the Government for the disgraceful conduct—I can use no other term—of the agents of
the Government, and we can only accept that position until someone in the name of the Government has repudiated the charges made by the hon. Member for the Falls Division for one of the most disgraceful cases that has ever been brought before the House in the whole of the Irish Debates that we have had. The hon. Member told us that these cases occurred during curfew hours. I have been in Ireland during the time the curfew has been in operation. I had some little experience of curfew during the last visit I paid to Ireland, and especially to Dublin. I know some of the dangers that you run—even Members of this House—if you care to be out of doors during curfew hours. These murders—and they cannot be otherwise described—had associated with them strong points of evidence that clearly demonstrate that they could not be conducted by other than Government representatives. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I have sat through the Debate, and on one has attempted to reply to my hon. Friend. I heard one hon. Member say that another hon. Member on this side was a liar, and that he was talking rot. That is the sort of thing I have listened to in interruptions from the Government side of the House in this most serious Debate. I am quite prepared to wait and listen to the Chief Secretary in order that he may put an entirely different aspect upon one of the most disgraceful episodes that has ever been reported to this House.
We were told that two, if not all three, of these young men had served in the Army and had magnificent records of service during the War, that there were three motor cars associated with the case, that they were dragged from their homes, and, I belive, some of the men were stated to have been in uniform. At any rate, that was said in a question asked earlier in the day. I again repeat, how is it possible, with the curfew in operation, for any civilian outside the Crown forces, the agents of the Crown, how is it possible for them to be patrolling the streets to go to these different homes and to conduct these foul deeds? I await the answer. But it is very important that Members on the Government side of the House, if they are to address the House at all on this particular occasion, should have in mind that these cases took place in Belfast. The great majority of the
cases that have been brought before the House in previous Debates have been cases in the South and in the West. Surely, there is an important aspect to be kept in mind, that these cases occurred in the North of Ireland, in Belfast, and occurred just at the time when a new Government has been called into being. I am prepared to say, as I have said in this House before, that I am afraid that some of the things that are now going on in the North of Ireland are the direct results of encouragement that certain politicians in the North of Ireland have received from those in high places. [Interruption.] I hope my hon. Friend here will find some other occupation than to be constantly jeering and giggling. It is time some of us replied to some of these interruptions. Our people behind here are kept in order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: That gives me the opportunity of appealing to both sides. I would not like to judge between one or the other, but when we have to discuss sad occurrences of this kind, cannot we listen to another, whatever be the views expressed?

Mr. HENDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have no desire to do other than that which would be in strict harmony with your wishes, and I was only diverted because of the constant stream of interruption that has passed this evening from certain Members on the other side. The point I wanted to make was that we ought to keep in mind that these cases which have occurred in the North of Ireland are not altogether dissociated with the spirit which has been making itself marked in the North during the last few months. We on these benches called attention to the conduct of the people in connection with the shipyards. I am quite convinced that if a stronger hand had been exercised by the Government in the North—I am not calling attention to it to-day for the first time—by those in responsible positions now in the new Government, instead of encouraging their men in the way that they did—and I am prepared to repeat the statement which has been made on the Floor of this House before—it is just possible that the North of Ireland would not have become the terrible cockpit of fighting that unfortunately it is to-day. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman when he rises will be able to satisfy the House that the charges
made by the Member for the Falls Division are not founded upon substantial evidence. Unless he can do so, many of us will be compelled to come to the conclusion that the reprisals we heard of yesterday, which many of us were led to believe that the Government were determined at last to put down with a very firm hand, and the three sad cases which the Member for the Falls Division brought before us this evening, were reprisals of a most determined kind, and they were reprisals for which agents of the Crown were directly responsible. I hope the Chief Secretary will be able to say what course he proposes to adopt in order to bring the offenders in these disgraceful cases to justice, and that he will be able to tell us a little more than he did in the reply to the question yesterday as to the Government's new policy of putting down with a very firm hand every kind of reprisal.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I shall do my best to answer the specific and, as far as I can without breaking the rules of the House, the general allegations made against the Government and its servants in Ireland. I regret that the rules of Debate will not allow me to deal with the last question put by the right hon. Gentleman, because it would not be possible on this occasion to go into the question of policy, though I hope you will allow me to wind up with one sentence on that. As this deals with Belfast I think the House would like to have the latest telegram that I have received with reference to the condition of affairs in that city. This is from the police, and received at 5 o'clock to-day:
I have to report that the state of the City is unsatisfactory. Outbreaks of rioting accompanied by shooting have occurred every day and several times a day in different districts. This shooting has become very serious and about six persons have lost their lives. This morning, at about 7.45 a.m., an attack by sniping was made on the shipyard workers at the corner of North Queen's Street and Clifton Street at the trams on which the workers were travelling to the shipyards. The attackers came on the streets and used revolvers. The police had to use firearms to restore order. No casualty has been found. The police had also to requisition a military armoured car. During today there have been several cases of rioting with shooting in the Stanhope Street area and at the top of the Falls Road. It is quite evident that the Sinn Fein element intend, if possible, to create disturbance in the City. At 2.40 p.m. to-day, special constables passing in lorries returning from
the funeral of the late special constable who was recently shot, were fired on in the Falls Road. There was no police casualties. At 4.30 this evening, firing was going on in the Falls Road.
It does bring to the House the fact that the condition of Belfast at the present moment is one of those regrettable occurrences that have extended over centuries of Irish history. Coming to the Motion, it is for the Adjournment of the House to call attention to
the want of proper control and discipline of the Crown forces in Belfast on Sunday morning whereby people were taken from their home and murdered during curfew hours.
The hon. Gentleman did not content himself with the words of the Motion, but specifically made allegations against the Crown forces as being responsible for these three murders. He did not specify which arm of the armed forces he held responsible. Perhaps he will tell me now.

Mr. DEVLIN: I was not there. How do I know? All I know is that three citizens were dragged out of their beds in the dead of night by persons on motor cars in curfew hours, on the evidence of the relatives of the assassinated persons. Some of them had uniform on. That is good enough for me.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The only uniform mentioned by the hon. Member in his speech was that one relative of one of these murdered men said that she thought that one of the men had on a khaki coat. [HON. MEMBERS: "Trench coat!"] A trench coat is not a uniform. First of all, let me say, why is the presumption urged in this Resolution against the Crown forces?

Mr. DEVLIN: The presumption is founded upon the fact that three different motor-cars arrived at the same time at three different places in curfew hours, dragged these people out of their beds, took them out, and shot them.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: My point is that, on the suggested evidence as urged by the hon. Member, it is an unworthy presumption that these brutal murders were committed by any members of the forces of the Crown. His accusations are couched in language against which I must protest.

Mr. DEVLIN: I will repeat it.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member refers to "Government assassins"
and to these men as "having been dragged out by Crown forces and murdered." He himself admits that he knows nothing of the facts.

Mr. J. JONES: You know them all.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I submit that it is a most serious thing to make charges against these forces, who cannot answer in this House, except through me, and I am going to stand up for them again to-night.

Mr. J. JONES: Three cheers for the chief assassin. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I will not withdraw.

Mr. SPEAKER: I warn the hon. Member for the Silvertown Division once more that he is not entitled to interrupt, as he does continually during certain Debates.

Mr. JONES: I will go out, calling him the chief assassin. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]

Mr. SPEAKER: Having warned the hon. Member twice, I must now call upon him to withdraw.

Mr. JONES: Good-night, all you assassins. You are trying to murder my country. You are nothing but a gang of assassins, all of you.

The hon. Member for the Silvertown Division then left the House.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I stand here to protest against the allegation, without evidence, against the forces of the Crown operating in Belfast. I could understand an accusation, based on some evidence, against a particular arm operating in a specific district, but I cannot understand the sweeping allegation made by the hon. Member, without a tittle of evidence to justify him, against men of the Royal Irish Constabulary who, in the great majority, are Irishmen and Roman Catholics like himself, no more capable of murder than he is. They are his own countrymen, who are doing their best to maintain order in the city, and in that endeavour they are not assisted by him and some of those who agree with him.

Mr. DEVLIN: How dare you make a statement of that sort? What right have you to make a statement of that sort? I have done more to keep order than you have. Against every odds I have fought to keep the peace. [Interruption.] How dare you make such a statement, you cynical—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member made some very violent charges in his speech, and he should listen to the Chief Secretary, whether he agrees with his defence or not.

Mr. DEVLIN: He is not entitled to make such a statement.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: rose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: The Chief Secretary made some reference to what he considers the effect of certain of the hon. Member's actions. Complaint was made on the other side of an exactly similar kind.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I shall certainly keep my remarks within the Rules of Debate.

Sir W. BARTON: Keep them within the rules of decency!

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I hope that the House will permit me to make my speech in my own way. I repeat that there was nothing in the speech of the hon. Member for the Falls Division to justify the wholesale accusation of assassination against the forces of the Crown in Belfast. The fact that three men were murdered in brutal circumstances has been set up—

Mr. SEXTON: During curfew hours.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I agree. No one has been arrested for these murders.

Mr. DEVLIN: Nor will be.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Ten policemen have also been murdered in Belfast, and no one has been arrested for these murders. The difficulty of arresting murderers in Ireland is notorious. It is best known to Members who come from and live in Ireland. These murders occurred during curfew hours.

Captain REDMOND: Were the police murdered during curfew hours?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Some of them were murdered in curfew hours, which have been one of the most fatal times in the history of Ireland. It is impossible, especially in an enormous city like Belfast, to have patrols in every street and to enforce—

Mr. DEVLIN: What about the motor cars?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Motor cars are given permits during curfew hours. There is nothing in the fact that these motor cars went out during curfew hours
to mix the murderers with the forces of the Crown. The motor car during curfew hours has been one of the favourite vehicles of the murderers in Ireland. That, to my mind, is not only not conclusive evidence in favour of the argument of the hon. Member for the Falls Division, but it is not evidence at all. It is common ground that three murders were committed, but I take issue with the mover of the Motion. He has got no right, on the evidence which he has produced to this House, to fasten guilt on these brave men, who are upholding at this very hour the authority of this House and of the Crown in Belfast.

Mr. DEVLIN: Were the men who murdered Canon Magner brave men?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: They were not brave men.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for the Falls Division has stated his case for more than three-quarters of an hour. I am sure that I may appeal to him to listen to the reply of the Chief Secretary, even thongh he may disagree with it.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member for the Falls Division has asked me to condemn these murders and to take every step to find the murderers. I condemn them. I will take every step I can to find the murderers. Whether they are civilians or someone else, it does not redound to my credit if they escape. I admit it. All I ask of hon. Members in this House is to unite in assisting me to track down all murderers. The difficulty is that the House is always divided in a Debate of this kind. Questions are always being asked me in reference to a specific kind of murder, but not in reference to the general and paramount question of rebellion, out of which flow the great majority of the atrocities. Who are these forces that are accused of murder in Belfast? The principal force in Belfast is the force of Royal Irish Constabulary, about 1,200 strong, almost entirely Irishmen and Roman Catholics, as I have said. They are in charge of that great city. They are reinforced by military, if they ask for the military to assist them. In addition to them, there is a certain number of special constables, who are under the Royal Irish Constabulary and do their duty under the control of the regular police. My submission is that against
none of these three classes has there been any evidence adduced to-night that would lead the House to any of the conclusions suggested by the hon. Member who moved the Resolution, namely, that these brutal crimes were committed by forces of the Crown. If he can get any evidence I would be the first, reluctantly, naturally, to bring to book anyone responsible for these murders—any one. The one case of murder that has been proved against the police was the case of a man, accompanied by another, responsible for the murder of an Irish gentleman named Dixon. He was tried for murder, found guilty and duly hanged for his crime. The Government is the first to wish to bring to justice murderers, whoever they are. I hope that the House, when it deals with these specific questions in a Debate of this kind, will not allow this murder or that murder to blind their eyes to the fact that a deliberate campaign of murder is going on in Ireland against the forces of the Crown and against law-abiding civilians. There is at the present moment a deliberate campaign, engineered by Sinn Feiners, against the Northern Parliament in the hope that its success will be impossible. Within the last few hours comparatively, one result of that campaign has been to destroy a considerable fraction of the Belfast waterworks, which supply that great city with water.

Mr. DEVLIN: How do you know that Sinn Feiners did it? What right have you to make statements and insinuations? It may be you did it yourself.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The reason I am convinced that it was done by Sinn Feiners is, first, a report I have got, and, secondly, that I told the House some time ago that we had discovered plans which had for their objective these very waterworks. There is a deliberate campaign going on to destroy the Northern Parliament and its success. I regret it profoundly. I have answered the specific case put to me by the hon. Member for the Falls Division. I want to conclude in the spirit of the hon. and gallant Member for Mid-Armagh (Lieut.-Colonel Allen) who made to-night one of the best speeches I have ever heard in an Irish Debate. The hon. Member for the Falls Division blames the British Government for everything.

Mr. DEVLIN: Decidedly.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is a typical Irish attitude of mind.

Mr. DEVLIN: He knows what he is talking about. He does not come from Canada.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The tragedy of the Irish situation at this minute is that Irishmen are murdering Irishmen. It is not an English question at all, and nobody knows it better than the hon. Member for the Falls Division. We are trying to hand over the government of Ireland to Irishmen.

Mr. DEVLIN: Then get out at once.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The remedy is in the hands of the people of Ireland.

Captain REDMOND: Nonsense!

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member says get out at once.

Mr. DEVLIN: At once.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is a point to be considered if it would not be a good thing to withdraw the military from the Northern Parliament area and hand over the control of that area to the duly elected Northern Parliament.

Mr. DEVLIN: Take them out of the South also, and let us settle it among ourselves.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, and by exactly the same policy when the South come into their Parliament there will be equal treatment for both parties in Ireland.

Captain REDMOND: On Tibb's Eve.

Mr. DEVLIN: Tearing the country into pieces.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: There is one point about it. If we did hand over the policing of the Northern area to the Northern Parliament a Debate like this would not take place in this House.

Mr. DEVLIN: Does that frighten us? Not at all.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am not seeking to frighten the hon. Member, but to encourage him.

Mr. DEVLIN: We shall all go into Sinn Fein then.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is the hon. Member's country, and I say seriously—
and I am sure I shall have the House with me—we all desire to hand over to Ireland absolute control of her local affairs. One Parliament has already been elected, and the hon. Member for Falls is a member of it for two constituencies.

Mr. DEVLIN: I would not touch it with a 40-foot pole.

An HON. MEMBER: He will come in shortly.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: He would be welcomed in, I am sure, and my only regret would be that he would have to leave this House, I fear.

Mr. DEVLIN: I would be glad to do that, too.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Well, I should be sorry. No one would miss him more than I should. The point is that one Parliament is functioning. I would like to see the other Parliament functioning on 28th June, and taking over from this House all questions of law and order and having them administered by Irishmen for Irishmen—

Mr. O'CONNOR: And finance?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: —with the widest possible measure of financial control as well. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That is nothing new, but let us see the position at the moment. A state of rebellion exists, and the rebellion is being carried on, not by uniformed men, but by men who go about in large or small groups generally with concealed weapons, and whose activities are directed not only against the armed forces of the Crown, but against unarmed and innocent civilians, both men and women. The onus of the blame for the continuance of this state of things is not on the British Government, and it is not on the Government of the Northern Parliament. The Prime Minister of the Northern Parliament has already met the leader of the Sinn Fein movement, and is prepared to meet him again, but that leader refuses to meet him. The Prime Minister of England long since, was prepared to meet the leaders of Sinn Fein, but they refused. The two conditions that I would urge the House to consider in looking at this question are: First, let us unite and remain united against this rebellion.
Second, having put the rebellion down, let us remain united and encourage the North and South of Ireland to come together. Let them settle their differences and there will be no trouble after that in dealing with the Irish Question, what is really an Irish question and not primarily a question for this House at all. In the meantime what is the use of hurling accusations against me—that is immaterial—or accusations against the Government—that is useless. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, these accusations are useless. The Government is compelled to take every step, and will take every step, to defeat this conspiracy of Sinn Fein, which has for its object, and has alone for its object, the break up of this United Kingdom and the British Empire, by a highly organised, heavily financed, principally from America, organisation of murder and of terror.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I do not profess to have quite grasped the meaning of the Einstein theory of relativity, but I gather that we have to have new ideas of space and time, and whenever I hear a speech of the right hon. Gentleman and some of the other hon. Members on the opposite side I begin to wonder whether their mind is insane or mine, but I never heard a more extraordinary and preposterous reply to the indictment of my hon. Friend the Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin) than the attempted reply made from the opposite side. Let me divide the reply into its different categories. My hon. Friend has been accused of a lack of delicacy in bringing this matter forward. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Lieut.-Colonel Allen), with an air that would have done credit to Mr. Pecksniff, asked, "Why these questions? Why this Debate?" That is the indelicacy of which my hon. Friend is guilty. Three of his constituents, his coreligionists, his fellow-countrymen, are foully murdered, and it is indelicate for him to bring these matters before the attention of the House! Was there ever a more ghastly travesty of what are the duties of a Member to his constituents? He and others who have taken part in the Debate are charged on the ground of policy. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite actually makes the charge that questions and Debates of this kind are an encouragement to crime in Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Other
hon. Members by their cheers give their assent to that proposition. The hon. and gallant Member said that every true Briton ought to stand by the Government without bringing these cases for criticism before the House. I wonder whether I can claim to be as good a Briton as my hon. and gallant Friend. At any rate, I have a good many good Britons on my side. Nearly all the Bishops of the Anglican Church have taken up the same position as we have taken on this side with regard to these Governmentally encouraged and authorised and condoned assassinations. The Free Churches have taken up our position. All the decent men in the country outside this House have taken up our position, and the last two elections have shown you that the people of this country, too, when they get the opportunity of pronouncing, have taken up our position.
What is our position? Our position is that it is not we in our denunciations of these reprisals, these authorised and condoned assassinations, that have encouraged and created crime in Ireland. It is the Government policy of reprisals that has created crime in Ireland. I put it to any Englishman in this House: if his fellow-citizens were taken out of their beds in the middle of the night by the forces of the Government and were, without trial, even without accusation, or with nothing beyond rumour of suspicion—or even without rumour or suspicion—were put up against the wall, after having been torn from the side of their wives and the cradles of their children, and shot, is there a single Englishman who does not know that that would produce an outburst of outrage, crime, and reprisals from the free citizens of this country who would not submit to such tyranny? Supposing anyone in the course of recent times had gone down into Wales and because there happened to be some disturbance the man was assassinated, does anyone suppose that Wales would take a thing of that kind lying down? Do you suppose there would not have been reprisals?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There were Sinn Fein murders first.

Mr. O'CONNOR: The courtesy of the House of Commons has been invariably extended to me, and I hope that I may expect it on this occasion. What, I ask, does the Chief Secretary in reply to the
charge put by my hon. Friend. I am sorry there was not so full a House as there is now when my hon. Friend brought forward his case. I do not propose to recapitulate it. But I may say this: This young man, probably under the inspiration of my hon. Friend near me who, like myself, was a supporter of the War, and of the liberties of this country and of the world, before he was of military age, at 16½, joined the Army and fought during the War until disabled. He has since been in the public service. He and others were zealous to protect the liberties of England and of the world which exist, while the liberty of Ireland has been destroyed by this Government. This young man joined the Army at 16 ½, inspired by the patriotism to which I have referred, and at 22 he is taken out of his house in the middle of the night and foully assassinated. [HON. MEMBERS: "By Sinn Feiners!"]

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: If a man is in khaki his life is not worth a moment's purchase!

Mr. O'CONNOR: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Mid-Armagh is surprised that my hon. Friend (Mr. Devlin) represents this man's case in this House, and brings it before the attention of the House and the world. What is the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to it? Really I am a little disappointed in the Chief Secretary, if he has left me any room for disappointment—and he has left me very little. I thought I saw some reform even in his "Rake's Progress," but he is just the same man. He is just the same official. He gives exactly the same official reply as he gave after the burning of Cork. The hon. Gentlemen opposite, under the inspiration of the Chief Secretary, makes some reply, and except that I knew the sincerity of some hon. Members, I would say it was an insincere reply. When the right hon. Gentleman was asked about the burning of Cork he said—I do not give the exact robustiousness of his gestures, and the resonance of his voice, but we all remember it—"I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever of what has been put forward." The fact that he was trained in a Canadian school of calisthenics accounts for his gestures.
I have yet to get any evidence against any of the forces of the Crown having taken part in the burning of Cork!
Hon. Gentlemen opposite, under the Chief Secretary's inspiration, when I asked the question, "Who burned Cork?" immediately replied, "Sinn Feiners." Do you say now it was the Sinn Feiners who burned Cork?

Mr. A. L. PARKINSON: Yes.

Mr. O'CONNOR: One hon. Gentleman opposite still remains in the virginal innocence of saying it was the Sinn Feiners who burned Cork. I think my hon. Friend represents Blackpool. He has the roystering spirit of the seaside holiday resort he represents. Go to General Strickland and produce his Report, and you will see who burned Cork. When this charge is brought tonight, what does the right hon. Gentleman say? In the first place he puts in the mouth of my hon. Friend (Mr. Devlin) a statement he never made. He never said the Royal Irish Constabulary committed these murders. He said all the evidence pointed to them being committed by forces of the Crown. How can he tell which it was? What he could tell is this, if men are able to drive around at almost the same hour, and evidently on a concerted plan, in three motor lorries, after curfew—in face of that evidence the primâ facie case is these murders were committed by forces of the Crown and could have been committed by no other body. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not get up and in candour say, "I believe there is some ground for the suspicion that these crimes were committed by the forces of the Crown"? Instead of that, by every form of evasion, by the suppression of the truth and the suggestion of the false, the right hon. Gentleman has done his best to spread the opinion to that side of the House, which is so easily gulled, and to the world, that there is no evidence whatever against the forces of the Crown. We raise this as a matter of policy, apart altogether from our duty to our constituency and our country. Our settled conviction is, which is justified by the events of every day, that the policy of the Government has led, leads, and will continue to lead, to this horrible and costly vendetta which, to my horror, sorrow, and despair, is going on to-day. Why, there are 50 murders to-day for every one that was committed before the right hon. Gentleman brought in his Bill of last year.
What is the cause of all this, when men are taken out of their houses and assassinated by the forces of the Crown, and when these acts are, if not defended, at least condoned to a large extent, by the highest Minister in the Government?

Captain S. WILSON: Who killed a clergyman of 79?

Mr. DEVLIN: Who lost the despatches?

Mr. O'CONNOR: I deplore and condemn as much as my hon. and gallant Friend the murder of this poor old clergyman, but is it suggested, because a clergyman is assassinated, that it justifies assassination by the forces of the Crown with the connivance of the Government? If his interruption does not mean that, it means nothing except an attempt to obscure the issue, such as has been done all through this controversy. A Government which, without any provocation whatever, encourages, defends, and condones private assassination has ceased to be a civilised Government. I entirely sympathise with my hon. Friend in his expression of a wish, and I even share some of his hopes with regard to the coming together of Ireland on this question. How will such conduct as the right hon. Gentleman defended to-night, in so far as he could defend it, lead to their coming together? [An HON. MEMBER: "Stop the Sinn Fein murderers!"] The

hon. Gentleman went back to 1916, but he might have remembered some of the years immediately preceding it, which provided a reason for the existing state of things to-day. I want the two parts of Ireland to come together, but do you suppose that you will get the Catholics in the South of Ireland to have much faith in the Parliament of the North of Ireland if three Catholic citizens can be assassinated in the middle of the night by the forces of the Crown in Belfast without anything like a reasonable condemnation either from that quarter or from the right hon. Gentleman? I hope they will come together. At the present moment there is a seething cauldron of religious and political passion in Belfast. The circumstances and conditions there are very deplorable. One-third of the six counties is protesting in the most violent manner it can, by abstention from this Parliament, against this Parliament, and four-fifths of the rest of Ireland. Of all the insane and the profligate counsels ever given, the counsel of His Majesty's Ministers is to drag into this controversy as a partisan what should be the elevating, healing and unifying influence of the Crown.

Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."

The House divided: Ayes, 64; Noes, 192.

Division No. 164.]
AYES.
10.55 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Robertson, John


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Rose, Frank H.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hogge, James Myles
Royce, William Stapleton


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Irving, Dan
Sexton, James


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Kennedy, Thomas
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Briant, Frank
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Sitch, Charles H.


Bromfield, William
Kenyon, Barnet
Swan, J. E.


Cairns, John
Kiley, James Daniel
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Lawson, John James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lunn, William
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Morgan, Major D. Wats
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Galbraith, Samuel
Mosley, Oswald
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Gillis, William
Myers, Thomas
Wintringham, Thomas


Glanville, Harold James
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
O'Grady, James
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Raffan, Peter Wilson



Grundy, T. W.
Redmond, Captain William Archer
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Devlin and Mr. T. P. O'Connor.


NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Balfour, George (Hampstead)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Barlow, Sir Montague


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Barnett, Major Richard W.


Barnston, Major Harry
Haslam, Lewis
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Purchase, H. G.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Rae, H. Norman


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hinds, John
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Reid, D. D.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hood, Joseph
Renwick, George


Boscawen. Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hopkins, John W. W.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.
Rodger, A. K.


Brown, Major D. C.
Hurd, Percy A.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Seager, Sir William


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Seddon, J. A.


Clough, Robert
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Coats, Sir Stuart
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kidd, James
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Cope, Major William
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Stanton, Charles Butt


Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Starkey, Captain John Ralph


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lorden, John William
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Lowther, Col. Claude (Lancaster)
Sugden, W. H.


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Edge, Captain William
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Sutherland, Sir William


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Taylor, J.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Maddocks, Henry
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Manville, Edward
Townley, Maximilian G.


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Townshend, Sir Charles V. F.


Falcon, Captain Michael
Mason, Robert
Tryon, Major George Clement


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Fell, Sir Arthur
Mitchell, William Lane
Waddington, R.


Fildes, Henry
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Forrest, Walter
Morrison, Hugh
Waring, Major Walter


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Murchison, C. K.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Nail, Major Joseph
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Neal, Arthur
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Grant, James Augustus
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Green, Albert (Derby)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Wise, Frederick


Greig, Colonel James William
Parker, James
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Gretton, Colonel John
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Worsfold, T. Cato


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hailwood, Augustine
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Perkins, Walter Frank
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'I, W. D'by)
Perring, William George



Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Prescott, Major W. H.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. McCurdy.


Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1921–22.

CLASS V.

MIDDLE EASTERN SERVICES.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £27,197,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secre-
tary of State for the Colonies, including a Grant in Aid.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.